That is correct. For any standalone technology that is being released
outside of J2EE, you need to pass the standalone version of the TCK.
The tests are not always the same, as there are some additions and
subtractions based on the requirements of
how the technology is defined to work outs
On May 30, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 28, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think I wrote something a little confusing...let me clarify...
What we do to a subset of Geronimo has impact on the whether it
passes. However if Geronimo p
On May 30, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 28, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I just read through the long "Module restructure" thread, and it
to me is seems like many people are talking about how we break
Geronimo into subprojects without using the word subpro
Jeff Genender wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 28, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think I wrote something a little confusing...let me clarify...
What we do to a subset of Geronimo has impact on the whether it
passes. However if Geronimo passes the TCK, then a subset wo
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 28, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think I wrote something a little confusing...let me clarify...
What we do to a subset of Geronimo has impact on the whether it
passes. However if Geronimo passes the TCK, then a subset would
include the featu
On May 29, 2005, at 2:08 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/28/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Each subproject has an inherent amount of overhead. For example,
each subproject needs a separate project management committee, each
one will need to produce releases (not an easy task) an
On May 28, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Brian K. Wallace wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
|
|> My questions at the root of this are:
|> ~ 1. Assuming the whole of Geronimo passes the TCK, what can
be said of
|> a 'minimal' Geronimo? Is it able to claim anythi
On May 28, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think I wrote something a little confusing...let me clarify...
What we do to a subset of Geronimo has impact on the whether it
passes. However if Geronimo passes the TCK, then a subset would
include the features that passed.
Technicall
On May 28, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Brian K. Wallace wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
| I just read through the long "Module restructure" thread, and it
to me
| is seems like many people are talking about how we break
Geronimo into
| subprojects withou
On May 28, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I just read through the long "Module restructure" thread, and it to
me is seems like many people are talking about how we break
Geronimo into subprojects without using the word subproject.
That may be where it went to out of confusion, bu
Bruce Snyder wrote, On 5/29/2005 2:08 AM:
On 5/28/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Each subproject has an inherent amount of overhead. For example,
each subproject needs a separate project management committee, each
one will need to produce releases (not an easy ta
On 5/28/05, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that people would like to see components broken down so that
> they can mix-n-match the pieces that they want, rather than having to
> always swallow the whole enchilada.
>
> The question then is, how do you break up these pieces so
On 5/28/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Each subproject has an inherent amount of overhead. For example,
> each subproject needs a separate project management committee, each
> one will need to produce releases (not an easy task) and so on. I
> would sat that "there is a demonstr
I think that people would like to see components broken down so that
they can mix-n-match the pieces that they want, rather than having to
always swallow the whole enchilada.
The question then is, how do you break up these pieces so that we can
support this.
Regards,
Alan
David Jencks wrot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Jencks wrote:
| So far I am completely unconvinced by any arguments in this thread.
|
| As a thought experiment, lets suppose we had already released a
| certified geronimo, say last month, and we had solved most of our build
| problems, say wit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
|
|> My questions at the root of this are:
|> ~ 1. Assuming the whole of Geronimo passes the TCK, what can be said of
|> a 'minimal' Geronimo? Is it able to claim anything with regard to the
|> TCK?
|
|
| It depends on the spe
So far I am completely unconvinced by any arguments in this thread.
As a thought experiment, lets suppose we had already released a
certified geronimo, say last month, and we had solved most of our build
problems, say with maven2. So, we have a certified branch and trunk,
and all the geronimo
I think I wrote something a little confusing...let me clarify...
What we do to a subset of Geronimo has impact on the whether it passes.
However if Geronimo passes the TCK, then a subset would include the
features that passed. However, as it stands, passing is an
all-or-nothing propsition.
On May 28, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Brian K. Wallace wrote:
Agreed. And this, if properly combined with 'common deployments',
could
be a major step toward getting new users more interested.
Undoubtedly it
will require a shift in developer processes, but in the long run it
would (in theory - appli
Brian K. Wallace wrote:
~ 1. Assuming the whole of Geronimo passes the TCK, what can be said of
a 'minimal' Geronimo? Is it able to claim anything with regard to the TCK?
TCK is all or nothing. You pass all tests or you don't pass
certification. A minimal Geronimo would clearly be a subs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
| I just read through the long "Module restructure" thread, and it to me
| is seems like many people are talking about how we break Geronimo into
| subprojects without using the word subproject. The goals of the
| "Module rest
I just read through the long "Module restructure" thread, and it to
me is seems like many people are talking about how we break Geronimo
into subprojects without using the word subproject. The goals of the
"Module restructure" thread seem to be:
1) allow modules to branch to unstable witho
22 matches
Mail list logo
