[GitHub] [geronimo-gshell] dependabot[bot] closed pull request #4: Bump spring-core from 2.5.6 to 5.3.19 in /gshell-support/gshell-spring

dependabot[bot] closed pull request #4: Bump spring-core from 2.5.6 to 5.3.19 in /gshell-support/gshell-spring URL: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-gshell/pull/4 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL

[GitHub] [geronimo-gshell] dependabot[bot] commented on pull request #4: Bump spring-core from 2.5.6 to 5.3.19 in /gshell-support/gshell-spring

dependabot[bot] commented on PR #4: URL: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-gshell/pull/4#issuecomment-1136778408 Superseded by #5. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific co

[GitHub] [geronimo-gshell] dependabot[bot] opened a new pull request, #5: Bump spring-core from 2.5.6 to 5.2.22.RELEASE in /gshell-support/gshell-spring

dependabot[bot] opened a new pull request, #5: URL: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-gshell/pull/5 Bumps [spring-core](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework) from 2.5.6 to 5.2.22.RELEASE. Release notes Sourced from https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework

Re: Dealing with compliance disagreements (was Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0)

> On May 24, 2022, at 6:14 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > You could have flags that enabled non-compliant behavior, but they would have > to be off by default and require user action to turn them on. To be clear I could have used a better word than "flags." You can have any means you like to en

Dealing with compliance disagreements (was Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0)

Just wanted to echo what Jean-Louis said and add some details. During the 20 years of these specs living in the JCP, the license requirements stated that you must agree to ship your implementation with all defaults set to the compliant state. You could have flags that enabled non-compliant beha

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

here is my own +1 (binding) Le mer. 25 mai 2022 à 02:12, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO a écrit : > I always find it better when we can keep backward compatibility for users. > But this is a major version and I'm not a big fan of cheap system > properties. > > If we think it's not good, we should create a

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

I always find it better when we can keep backward compatibility for users. But this is a major version and I'm not a big fan of cheap system properties. If we think it's not good, we should create a challenge to get it fixed in the spec + TCK. Otherwise, I would keep it the way it is. If it breaks

[jira] [Comment Edited] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541671#comment-17541671 ] Richard Zowalla edited comment on GERONIMO-6835 at 5/24/22 7:43 PM:

[jira] [Comment Edited] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541671#comment-17541671 ] Richard Zowalla edited comment on GERONIMO-6835 at 5/24/22 7:43 PM:

[jira] [Comment Edited] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541671#comment-17541671 ] Richard Zowalla edited comment on GERONIMO-6835 at 5/24/22 7:31 PM:

[jira] [Comment Edited] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541671#comment-17541671 ] Richard Zowalla edited comment on GERONIMO-6835 at 5/24/22 7:30 PM:

[jira] [Comment Edited] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541671#comment-17541671 ] Richard Zowalla edited comment on GERONIMO-6835 at 5/24/22 7:03 PM:

[jira] [Comment Edited] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541671#comment-17541671 ] Richard Zowalla edited comment on GERONIMO-6835 at 5/24/22 7:02 PM:

[jira] [Commented] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541671#comment-17541671 ] Richard Zowalla commented on GERONIMO-6835: --- Bootstraping the mailbox "test1

[jira] [Commented] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541482#comment-17541482 ] Richard Zowalla commented on GERONIMO-6835: --- Note, that we are already passi

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6835) Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl

Richard Zowalla created GERONIMO-6835: - Summary: Fix Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 for Geronimo Jakarta Mail Impl Key: GERONIMO-6835 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 Project: Geron

[jira] [Commented] (GERONIMO-6834) geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec (1.0.0-M1) does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK SigTests for Java 11

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541470#comment-17541470 ] Richard Zowalla commented on GERONIMO-6834: --- The difference arises from the

[jira] [Updated] (GERONIMO-6834) geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec (1.0.0-M1) does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK SigTests for Java 11

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Richard Zowalla updated GERONIMO-6834: -- Summary: geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec (1.0.0-M1) does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK Sig

[jira] [Updated] (GERONIMO-6834) geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK SigTests for Java 11

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Richard Zowalla updated GERONIMO-6834: -- Description: We have failing signature tests on *geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec* (1.0

[jira] [Commented] (GERONIMO-6834) geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK SigTests for Java 11

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17541465#comment-17541465 ] Richard Zowalla commented on GERONIMO-6834: --- Signature tests work fine for J

[jira] [Updated] (GERONIMO-6834) geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK SigTests for Java 11

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Richard Zowalla updated GERONIMO-6834: -- Summary: geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK SigTests for J

[jira] [Updated] (GERONIMO-6834) geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec does not pass Jakarta Mail TCK SigTests

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Richard Zowalla updated GERONIMO-6834: -- Description: We have failing signature tests on *geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec* {c

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6834) geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec does not pass SigTests

Richard Zowalla created GERONIMO-6834: - Summary: geronimo-jakartamail_2.1_spec does not pass SigTests Key: GERONIMO-6834 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834 Project: Geronimo

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

Romain mentioned the idea (via Slack) of introducing a (cheap) system property, which a user can specifiy to get back the old behaviour. If we want to follow the compatibility appraoch, we should add that flag as the spec / RI is really unclear. Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 13:01 +0200 schrie

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

I conclude the same thing thanks your pointers so back to the question: do we want to maintain the compat for our user base, do we want to align on the random spec behavior or do we don't care? Indeed I'm always in first team, in particular there since it will be deprecated so the least we touch th

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

The test in question is https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaf-tck/blob/2.0.1/tests/api/javasoft/sqe/tests/jakarta/activation/ActivationDataFlavor/normalizeMimeTypeParameter_Test.java which expects the plain parameter value instead of "parameter=value" as a return value. The JavaDoc is also not qui

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

Hmm, before that the question is "are the TCK spec compliant", a lot have a reference in the spec we maybe missed, do you have some pointers on them? If we were wrong let's fix it, if the TCK are wrong then maybe ignore the TCK? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau |

AW: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

There is a TCK test regarding normalizeMimeTypeParameter which broke with the current impl of normalizeMimeTypeParameter Therefore, I adjusted it but agree that it is mit really specified. Question would be, if it is "ok" to fail specific tests of the TCK. Gruß Richard _

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

Not voting negatively but seems we broke normalizeMimeTypeParameter (I guess copying the RI?) and I'm not sure it should be done. >From my understanding this part is not well specified and highly depends on the impl but I don't see a reson to break existing consumers which I always favor in regards

[VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0

Here we go We now pass all TCK and signature tests. Thanks Richard. This is essentially the same as the M1 David did last week but with the fixes for compliance (See GERONIMO-6832) Here is the link for sources https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/activation_2.0_spec/ Here is the svn

[jira] [Resolved] (GERONIMO-6833) Ensure proxy hierarchy is registered for native-image

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6833?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Romain Manni-Bucau resolved GERONIMO-6833. -- Resolution: Fixed > Ensure proxy hierarchy is registered for native-image >

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6833) Ensure proxy hierarchy is registered for native-image

Romain Manni-Bucau created GERONIMO-6833: Summary: Ensure proxy hierarchy is registered for native-image Key: GERONIMO-6833 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6833 Project: Ger

Re: Submitting a CCR for Geronimo Mail and Activation

Hi, We must run a release before that (at apache at least) AFAIK but +1 otherwise. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn

Re: GERONIMO-6832 - SigTests + TCK Failures for Activation 2.0.0-M1

Hi Richard, I reviewed and merged you diff. Thanks Le lun. 23 mai 2022 à 21:56, Zowalla, Richard < richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit : > Hi all, > > I gave it a try: the main issues were related to the change regarding > java.desktop. > > I added a patch (svn diff) to > https://issues.ap

[jira] [Resolved] (GERONIMO-6832) Fix TCK + Signature Tests for geronimo-activation_2.0_spec

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6832?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jean-Louis Monteiro resolved GERONIMO-6832. --- Fix Version/s: Spec_Activation_2.0_1.0.0 Resolution: Fixed Thanks R

Submitting a CCR for Geronimo Mail and Activation

Hello, With the last release David did, Richard ran the TCK and the signature tests and it looks like we are now fully compliant. What about submitting a CCR to Eclipse foundation Jakarta to be listed as a compliant implementation? -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://