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> <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" 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 15 00:32:45 2017 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Draft Final Release Specification Message-ID: <20170815003245.B4DDAA79C0@eggemoggin.niobe.net> I've posted a draft Final Release Specification to the usual URL: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jigsaw/spec/ There are no significant changes relative to the Proposed Final Draft. The draft Reference Implementation, based on JDK 9 build 181, will shortly be available here: http://jdk.java.net/java-se-ri/9 The draft TCK has already been made available to those EG members who have expressed interest in it. I plan to submit these materials to the JCP PMO as the Final Release Specification next week. Please let me know by 23:59 UTC next Monday, 21 August, if you think any changes are required. - Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Tue Aug 22 22:36:48 2017 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:36:48 -0700 Subject: Draft Final Release Specification In-Reply-To: <20170815003245.B4DDAA79C0@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20170815003245.B4DDAA79C0@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20170822153648.540242846@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2017/8/14 17:32:45 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > I've posted a draft Final Release Specification to the usual URL: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jigsaw/spec/ > > There are no significant changes relative to the Proposed Final Draft. > > The draft Reference Implementation, based on JDK 9 build 181, will > shortly be available here: > > http://jdk.java.net/java-se-ri/9 > > The draft TCK has already been made available to those EG members who > have expressed interest in it. > > I plan to submit these materials to the JCP PMO as the Final Release > Specification next week. Please let me know by 23:59 UTC next Monday, > 21 August, if you think any changes are required. I've submitted this version to the PMO for the Final Approval Ballot. I've also updated the issue summary [1] to mark the final three issues as resolved (#CompilationWithConcealedPackages, #ResolutionAtCompileTime, and #RestrictedKeywords). Wayne let me know privately back in June that the Eclipse developers who raised them were satisfied with the changes to the specification. - Mark [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/