Just a short update from the BatchEE corner: I've opened a PR, which will bring BatchEE to Jakarta Batch 2.1, which is EE10.
This impl passes the Batch TCK (with one exception for which I opened a PR in the Batch TCK repo). So hopefully we can get rid of that last SNAPSHOT dependency soon. Gruß Richard Am 6. Februar 2024 09:43:14 MEZ schrieb Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org>: >Hi all, > >if you monitored the GitHub repository in the last few weeks, you might >have noticed, that we did some work in order to get EE10 rolling. > >As we were mostly silent on the dev@ list (which is not a good thing >and we should definitly going back to use the lest more frequently), I >want to give an update of the current EE10 progress (from my pov): > >(1) We have implemented the EE10-related concurrency changes (huge >thanks to Jon for his work in this area) and fixed all tests to make >the "full build" green. We did _not_ setup or check the related TCK >yet. > >(2) The "main" branch fully uses EE-10 APIs and we fixed every test or >itest, which failed due to this upgrade. The full build is "green", >although we do not have any numbers on the TCK. > >(3) We did setup several standalone TCKs (jsonp, jsonb, bval, sigtests, >cdi, ...) but need to do some additional work to get them "green". CXF >isn't EE-10 compatible yet (they are working on it), so the related TCK >(in a PR) does fail with EE-10 specific stuff. > >(4) We still depend on some SNAPSHOT dependencies such as BatchEE, >OpenJPA and OWB. Some of these dependencies have already VOTE threads >up, so we can expect to remove these SNAPSHOTs soon. > >(5) Thomas did migrate some real world applications to TomEE 10 >SNAPSHOT and everything works as expected. I also did some tests with >TomEE 10 and our applications are also work as expected. > >What is next? > >I think, that - after (4) is adressed - we should do a milestone (m1) >release of TomEE soon. This is because the community needs a signal, >that we are activley working on getting a TomEE 10 up and running. >Otherwise, I think, that we might give the impression, that people >cannot expect a release (and even if it is only a milestone) in the >next time and switch to other container implementations, which would be >sad (imho). > >I know, that we are not passing the TCK with this SNAPSHOT nor that we >have exact numbers for it. I know, that it needs a lof of work to set >it up and pass it. > >But honestly, I think, that given our current lack of resources, it >would be a good thing to have something up for testing (even if it is >only a milestone and even if it does not pass the TCK). We can work on >compliance for the next milestone. > >What do you think? Do I miss something? > >Gruß >Richard
