Love the idea :-)
Like I said, this was really just an idea that we had, and we never really worked out how to do it. I much prefer this approach
On 23 Oct 2013, at 08:31, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:12:45 -0500, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk> said:
>
> PM> One idea we had for CDI, which we never actually followed through
> PM> on, was to release some sort of "TCK addendum", which contained
> PM> tests that it would be good if an implementation passed, as we knew
> PM> they were gaps in our initial TCK coverage. Of course, this wouldn't
> PM> be an official thing at all! But we never got around to doing it.
>
> I'm going to come down against the TCK addendum idea. It dilutes the
> "compatibility is a boolean property" value proposition that I think is
> foundational to everything we do with JCP.
>
> Instead, I propose something similar to what we do already with JSF.
> There, we have a large body of automated tests that are entirely
> implementation agnostic. These tests go well beyond the TCK, and are
> actively developed with TDD. They are, in all ways but name, a TCK
> addendum. I've been suggesting to the MyFaces folks for years that they
> take our automated tests and run them against their impl. I don't know
> if they've tried it, but technically there is nothing stopping them from
> doing so.
>
> I don't want to formalize the TCK addendum idea. Instead, we should:
>
> 1. Support the concept that implementations should be just as open with
> their test harness as they are with their source code.
>
> 2. Encourage TDD in impls.
>
> 3. Reduce the barriers to entry for contributing new tests to the impl's
> test harness.
>
> This has the added benefit of completely sidestepping any legal concerns
> about the TCK because you are only dealing with whe the impl source code
> license.
>
> Ed