LOL, it is a classic :-)
To be honest I'm not sure a formal TCK compliance is what drives users
to adopt a given framework, there are many, many examples around of the
frameworks thriving without having a compliance tag of any sort. I won't
be missing the users who would go away from CXF because it has no such a
tag at the moment, they'd not stay for long anyway.
FYI: it is a formal fact that a preliminary TCK is freely available to
Apache and the current Oracle restrictions do not apply to the
preliminary TCK due to them becoming effective after we tested against
it. So we thought carefully and decided that we could say it. If Oracle
tells Apache (not CXF) that the preliminary TCK is also falls under that
restriction then we'd update the statement. But don't hold your breath
:-), we hope that there will more positivity going forward in this area...
Thanks, Sergey
On 28/07/14 21:54, Bill Burke wrote:
> You can't say that you passed the preliminary TCK.
>
> Honestly, if the Oracle Java EE licensee gestapo secret police doesn't
> do a SMACK DOWN of this CXF statement, I'll be really really pissed off.
> They have given us so much grief over the years it is only fair they
> do the same to you :)
>
> On 7/28/2014 2:28 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> This is a CXF statement:
>>
>> http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs.html#JAX-RS-2.0Final
>>
>>
>> Sergey
>> On 28/07/14 20:07, Markus KARG wrote:
>>> Experts,
>>>
>>> in preparation for the next lecture on JAX-RS I'm giving at JUG
>>> Stuttgart, I'd like to prepare for another question I heard at JUG
>>> Karlsruhe: How good is support for JAX-RS currently?
>>>
>>> In particular, people liked to know which products implement JAX-RS 2.0
>>> already and have passed the TCK.
>>>
>>> So I'd be happy if the vendors among us could post a link to their
>>> particular open source product page where it is indicated that their
>>> product can be downloaded and is JAX-RS 2.0 compliant.
>>>
>>> I tried to find the information on my own, but for example with CXF the
>>> web site says it is JSR 311 / JAX-RS 1.0 compliant only. And I couldn't
>>> find any information about IBM and OW2 poduct status regarding JAX-RS
>>> 2.0, while TomEE+ apparently seems to have JAX-RS 1.0 only… (after more
>>> than one year since JAX-RS 2.0)?!
>>>
>>> I will include all the links arriving in-time on a slide, so this is
>>> usefuly for the products' popularity, too.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>
>>
>