I just wanted to make a note that removing the annotation will also mean
that the module-info.java will need to be manually managed since bnd also
generated that based on the annotations.

Just FYI,
- Ray

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:40 AM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That's awesome news.
>
> I'm glad it's something that can be achieved without too much effort.
> I understand and buy the pragmatic approach.
>
> But at the same time, if we can do a step forward and get even closer to
> being certified, that'd be great.
>
> Le jeu. 1 avr. 2021 à 10:06, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> > I've been playing with this a bit more and it appears we can simply
> > hard-code the "Require-Capability" header in el-api.jar.bnd
> >
> > Having taken the time to look at the actual values generated for these
> > API JARs, this does look like something that would be simple to maintain
> > manually - especially for the API JARs where adding a new use of
> > ServiceLoader is likely to happen fairly rarely.
> >
> > We should be able to remove the Bnd annotation in
> > - 10.0.x for 10.0.6 onwards
> > - 9.0.x for 9.0.46 onwards
> >
> > We'll certainly do this for the API JARs. I think we'll leave it in
> > place for the implementation JARs
> >
> > I have a few things on my TODO list at the moment but I don't see why I
> > shouldn't be able to get this done for the May set of releases.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On 01/04/2021 08:24, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > AFAIK TomEE will try to be certified and will try to not fork as much
> as
> > > possible Tomcat code so can be neat to solve it in particular when
> > > relatively easy:
> > >
> > > 1. compile tomcat classes with bnd as of today
> > > 2. run bnd to get the manifest.mf (
> > > 3. post process tomcat classes to remove bnd from the .class
> > > 4. jar it
> > >
> > > should solve the process and does not look crazy compared to what
> tomcat
> > > already does, no?
> > >
> > > Alternative is indeed to drop bnd since the manifest is quite easy to
> > write
> > > manually or with an ant task to filter the version for tomcat case, at
> > > least for spec jars (it is harder for the impl but here bnd is fine).
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le jeu. 1 avr. 2021 à 09:19, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > >
> > >> On 31/03/2021 20:14, Volodymyr Siedlecki wrote:
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>> It appears the TCK Signature tests will not be relaxed (see 1 & 2),
> > >>> and I'm wondering how Tomcat will proceed with the bnd annotation in
> > >>> the EL API? Will it be removed in the next release?
> > >>
> > >> Currently, there are no plans to change the Tomcat code.
> > >>
> > >> We do run the TCKs but take a pragmatic view of any failures. For
> > >> example, the Servlet TCK test that tests setting a context path in
> > >> web.xml always fails because Tomcat always overrides any such setting.
> > >> The Servlet spec allows this setting to be overridden but the TCK test
> > >> doesn't consider the possibility that a container will always do this.
> > >> Therefore we simply treat this as an expected failure. Full details
> for
> > >> all the TCKs we run can be found on the Wiki:
> > >>
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TOMCAT/Jakarta+EE+TCKs
> > >>
> > >> The EL signature test failure is another example of a failure that we
> > >> consider can be safely ignored.
> > >>
> > >> Tomcat does not, and has not for many, many years, formally certified
> > >> against the Jakarta EE / Java EE TCKs. I am not aware of any user
> > >> request at any point in that time to complete formal certification.
> > >> Therefore, I expect that Tomcat will continue following its current
> > >> pragmatic approach to the TCKs.
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Louis
>


-- 
*Raymond Augé* (@rotty3000)
Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* (@Liferay)
OSGi Fellow

Reply via email to