From iris.clark at oracle.com  Wed Aug  2 16:07:49 2017
From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Java SE 9 PFD Specification posted to jcp.org
Message-ID: <45b33144-d305-4f25-878b-7d7591e9d664@default>

FYI:  https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=379

Thanks,
Iris

From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Tue Aug  8 19:09:57 2017
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:09:57 -0700
Subject: Evaluating the TCK for JSR 376
In-Reply-To: <20170728163547.52D67210427@aojmv0009>
References: <20170725125420.601074949@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
 <CA+3eh13aRvPLs7dBteh=AyzEr9RnXs1EP_yUWUM4c3xP70pi1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170728163547.52D67210427@aojmv0009>
Message-ID: <20170808120957.457856743@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2017/7/28 9:33:30 -0700, tim_ellison at uk.ibm.com:
> "Volker Simonis" <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote on 27/07/2017 10:50:38:
>> ...
>> 
>> That's a nice feature for playing around, but I think the TCK
>> conformance test should by default really use and test all the default
>> platform modules from the runtime image under test and automatically
>> tests all these modules (i.e. it should check all exports, all the
>> requires transitive relations and finally it should check if the
>> modules form a "closed" subset with regard to the specification (i.e.
>> 'requires transitive') and also a "closed" subset with regard to the
>> implementation (i.e. 'requires')).
>> 
>> I think this will make it possible for malicious people to certify
>> custom images which don't conform to the specification (because as far
>> as I see the TCK doesn't test a complete implementation but just the
>> part you ask it to test). But you probably already know that.
> 
> I think that is a usability request rather than a requirement on the TCK.
> 
> While it would be desirable for the TCK to check that the Implementation
> adheres to *all* the obligations of the Specification, that is unlikely
> to be achievable.
> 
> The TCK can't stop "malicious people" claiming compliance where they don't
> follow the conditions of the Specification, or run the TCK as intended,
> including testing all the SE modules in the Implementation.
> 
> However, I agree it is a desirable enhancement and will reduce honest
> mistakes.

Agreed.

- Mark

From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Tue Aug  8 19:39:08 2017
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:39:08 -0700
Subject: Updated conformance text for Java SE 9
In-Reply-To: <0cac911b-17ed-fc62-fa62-652ba68afd21@azul.com>
References: <20170711170938.F1AF581DEA@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
 <a200083d-673f-7275-7684-428f3ce3e142@azul.com>
 <20170725092500.87182169@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
 <0cac911b-17ed-fc62-fa62-652ba68afd21@azul.com>
Message-ID: <20170808123908.792114424@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2017/7/31 5:06:04 -0700, Simon Ritter <sritter at azul.com>:
> On 25/07/2017 12:25, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> The intent here is that if an Implementation provides the means to create
>> further Implementations, subject to the constraints of the Specification,
>> then any user of such a derived Implementation will be granted the
>> necessary IP rights.  Your summary of the required conditions, however,
>> is incomplete.
> 
> The question that this raises is, how does someone who uses a further 
> implementation know that that implementation has been created subject to 
> the constraints of the specification?  The initial implementation must, 
> of course, pass the TCK.  However, guaranteeing IP rights for derived 
> implementations requires the TCK to be run on all derived 
> implementations, which the vast majority of users are not able to do.
> 
> I think that it needs to be made clear in the specification that the 
> output from jlink (or a similar tool) whilst in theory is a conformant 
> runtime is not automatically granted IP rights unless the TCK has 
> verified it to be conformant.

That's incorrect.

The conformance text is structured in the same manner as an inductive
proof.  If you have a conformant Implementation, and it provides a means
to create further Implementations, then the means used to create those
Implementations must guarantee that those Implementations satisfy all
of the constraints mentioned in the Specification.  It's therefore not
necessary to run the TCK on each further Implementation in order to
grant the necessary IP rights to users of those Implementations.

- Mark

From iris.clark at oracle.com  Tue Aug 15 00:53:33 2017
From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: java SE 9 (JSR 379) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK DRAFT
Message-ID: <1ae9e9cb-d0ee-44c7-8a7c-3450f2273a5f@default>

The draft Final Release Specification is available here:

    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/9/java-se-9-fr-spec-01/

This draft includes the following minor changes:

    - Annex 2, 5: Updated to the recent JDK 9 build 181 promotion.

    - Annex 3: Introductory text updated.

The draft Reference Implementation, based on JDK 9 build 181, will be
available here shortly:

    http://jdk.java.net/java-se-ri/9

The official RI is under the GPL license.  Equivalent builds will also be
provided at a later date under the Oracle Binary Code License for those who
prefer that.

The draft TCK has already been made available to EG members.  The most recent
promotion is build 66, based on JDK 9 build 176.  The final TCK, build 68,
based on JDK 9 build 181 is expected later this week.  There are no
significant changes between the two builds.

I plan to submit this to the JCP PMO for the Final Approval Ballot next week.
Please let me know by 23:59 UTC next Monday, 21 August, if you think any
changes are required.

Thanks,
Iris

From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 16:38:09 2017
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:38:09 +0200
Subject: java SE 9 (JSR 379) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK DRAFT
In-Reply-To: <1ae9e9cb-d0ee-44c7-8a7c-3450f2273a5f@default>
References: <1ae9e9cb-d0ee-44c7-8a7c-3450f2273a5f@default>
Message-ID: <CA+3eh10K3k=vy1j2FBUNwoQ+KRAHAyxsk8oOS5DSTAVLNoPunQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Iris Clark <iris.clark at oracle.com> wrote:
> The draft Final Release Specification is available here:
>
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/9/java-se-9-fr-spec-01/
>
> This draft includes the following minor changes:
>
>     - Annex 2, 5: Updated to the recent JDK 9 build 181 promotion.
>
>     - Annex 3: Introductory text updated.
>
> The draft Reference Implementation, based on JDK 9 build 181, will be
> available here shortly:
>
>     http://jdk.java.net/java-se-ri/9

The current JCK9 documentation (i.e.
JCK-runtime-9/doc/jck/JCK_Users_Guide.pdf) currently reads as follows:

---------
2.5 Reference Implementations for Java SE 9 Technology
The designated Reference Implementations for compatibility testing of
Java SE 9 Platform Implementations are binaries of the dedicated build
of the OpenJDK Project. They are defined on the following operating
systems and architectures:
? Oracle Linux 7 x64
? Windows 10 x64
The binaries of the build are defined and available at the download page.
----------

However, under the URL you've just posted (i.e.
http://jdk.java.net/java-se-ri/9) there's currently only a Linux
version available.

Assuming that the "download page" in the JCK documentation refers to
the same page you've just posted, my question is if we will eventually
see a Windows version of the RI under that URL or if the cited section
of the JCK documentation is outdated?

Thanks,
Volker


>
> The official RI is under the GPL license.  Equivalent builds will also be
> provided at a later date under the Oracle Binary Code License for those who
> prefer that.
>
> The draft TCK has already been made available to EG members.  The most recent
> promotion is build 66, based on JDK 9 build 176.  The final TCK, build 68,
> based on JDK 9 build 181 is expected later this week.  There are no
> significant changes between the two builds.
>
> I plan to submit this to the JCP PMO for the Final Approval Ballot next week.
> Please let me know by 23:59 UTC next Monday, 21 August, if you think any
> changes are required.
>
> Thanks,
> Iris

From iris.clark at oracle.com  Tue Aug 15 17:18:53 2017
From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: java SE 9 (JSR 379) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK DRAFT
In-Reply-To: <CA+3eh10K3k=vy1j2FBUNwoQ+KRAHAyxsk8oOS5DSTAVLNoPunQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1ae9e9cb-d0ee-44c7-8a7c-3450f2273a5f@default>
 <CA+3eh10K3k=vy1j2FBUNwoQ+KRAHAyxsk8oOS5DSTAVLNoPunQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2504af41-2ddf-4e8f-ba59-8df016f518ff@default>

Hi, Volker.

> Assuming that the "download page" in the JCK documentation refers
> to the same page you've just posted, my question is if we will eventually
> see a Windows version of the RI under that URL or if the cited section
> of the JCK documentation is outdated?

The JCK documentation is correct.  RI builds for Windows and Linux x64
under the Oracle Binary Code License are expected.

Thanks,
iris