[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

From: Bill Shannon <>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:22:36 -0700

The confidentiality restriction you refer to was removed in the latest version
of the JCP, and should not be present in the current TCK licenses. The TCK code
is still proprietary, but you can talk about TCK results.

Mark Struberg wrote on 10/20/13 11:21 PM:
> Yes, you can challenge those TCK tests if they contradict the spec and a sane
> mind would call it broken or unspecified. Of course only if the exact
> behaviour was not already tested in old TCKs as well ;) Just create a JIRA.
> The JavaEE6 WebProfile spec e.g. explicitely says in WP2.3 that only WAR
> files need to be supported, but the TCK probably also seems to test EAR
> deployment.
> Or at least that's what I've heard others saying that the TCK does, because we
> are still not allowed to talk about many of the TCKs because they have a
> clause in the TCK license which forbids us to talk about their details in
> public. This is really a pain and the next round of JCP upgrade should not
> only address JSRs but only their TCK licenses, pretty please!
> LieGrue,
> strub
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* arjan tijms <>
> *To:* users <>
> *Cc:* Bill Shannon <>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 20 October 2013, 23:34
> *Subject:* [javaee-spec users] How can serious TCK issues be addressed?
> Hi,
> I wonder if there is any procedure to address potentially serious defects
> or omissions in the TCK for a given Java EE specification.
> Hypothetically, suppose that the TCK for JSF tested a bunch of things, but
> did not test the most basic thing (that e.g. JSF actually rendered
> something), or that e.g. JPA would actually be able to persist anything,
> or Bean Validation would actually be able to validate, etc.
> If I'm not mistaken it's possible for serious spec issues to be corrected
> with an errata, but how does this work for the TCK? Can this be updated
> during the life time of a spec version, and if so what would this mean for
> products that have already been certified using an older version of the TCK?
> Kind regards,
> Arjan Tijms