Jakarta Activation 2.0 spec

[lukasj]

Specification PR template

When creating a specification project release review, create two PRs with the content divided as follows.

Include the following in PR#1:

• A directory in the form wombat/x.y where x.y is the release major.minor version, and the directory contains the following.
• Specification PDF in the form of wombat-spec-x.y.pdf
• Specification HTML in the form of wombat-spec-x.y.html
• A specification page named _index.md following the template at:
  https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/blob/master/spec_page_template.md
• For a Progress Review, that sufficient progress has been made on
  a Compatible Implementation and TCK, to ensure that the spec is
  implementable and testable.
• For a Release Review, a summary that a Compatible Implementation
  is complete, passes the TCK, and that the TCK includes sufficient
  coverage of the specification. The TCK users guide MUST include
  the instructions to run the compatible implementations used to
  validate the release. Instructions MAY be by reference.
• The URL of the OSSRH staging repository for the api, javadoc:
  https://jakarta.oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/staging/jakarta/activation/jakarta.activation-api/2.0.0/
• The URL of the staging directory on downloads.eclipse.org for the proposed EFTL TCK binary:
  http://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/jaf/tck/eftl/jakarta-activation-tck-2.0.0.zip
• The URL of the compatibility certification request issue:
  Compatibility certification request for EE4J implementation of Jakarta Activation jaf-api#40

Include the following in PR#2:

• Specification JavaDoc in the wombat/x.y/apidocs directory.

[netlify]

Deploy preview for jakartaee-specifications ready!

Built with commit 3dda7af

https://deploy-preview-172--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app

[kwsutter]

@lukasj Are you really trying to push through the official final review at this time? Since that requires a formal ballot (and time and effort), I would recommend that you just change this to a progress review. This will be much easier to get through the process at this point. Some of the review comments reflect this "milestone state" of delivery. Thanks!

[kwsutter]

@lukasj, can I get confirmation that you plan to move forward with the "final" Activation 2.0 release (instead of performing a "milestone" release)? I think that approach is fine. I just want to get this PR and the apidocs PR #173 to be filed against the proper github milestone (Jakarta EE 9 va Jakarta EE 9 Milestone 1). Thanks!

[lukasj]

Yes, I do. But given that the ballot has been postponed, I will create another PR for the milestone since staged final artifacts will be automatically dropped in few days and milestone needs to include something

[kwsutter]

Although I started this review before Milestone 1, I'm going to hand this off to @starksm64 as the official "mentor" for getting Jakarta Activation through the final review process. I've assigned this Issue to Scott for further reviewing. Questions? Don't hesitate to ask. Thanks!

[starksm64]

Spec Review Checklist

1. Spec PR

• PR uses template
• Directory of form {spec}/x.y
• PDF of form {spec}-spec-x.y.pdf ("-spec" preferred but not required)
• HTML of form {spec}-spec-x.y.html ("-spec" preferred but not required)
• Index page {spec}/x.y/_index.md following template
• Index page {spec}/_index.md following template
• No other files (e.g., no jakarta_ee_logo_schooner_color_stacked_default.png)
• Staging repository link of the form https://jakarta.oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/staging/jakarta/{spec}/jakarta-{spec}-api/x.y.z/
• EFTL TCK link of the form http://download.eclipse.org/.../+.zip
• Compatibility certification link of the form https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/{project}/#{issue}
• (Optional) Second PR for just apidocs

2. _index.md

• Link to spec pdf
• Link to spec html
• Link to apidocs
• Link to final TCK download zip file of the form https://download.eclipse.org/jakartaee/{spec}/x.y/*{spec}-tck-x.y.z.zip
• Link to API jar file of the form https://search.maven.org/artifact/jakarta.{spec}/jakarta.{spec}-api/x.y.z/jar
• Name of and link to at least one Compatible Implementation

3. javadocs

• Footer contains Eclipse copyright and link to license
• ESFL license is included, usually as doc-files/speclicense.html
• no META-INF directory in PR
• javadocs-jar artifact matches apidocs (optional for this release)

4. Spec PDF

• Correct spec title
• Version number of the form x.y, not x.y.z
• Correct Eclipse copyright line
• No DRAFT or SNAPSHOT
• Correct Logo

5. Spec HTML

• Same as PDF

6. TCK zip file

• README file (optional for this release)
• EFTL license file, preferably named LICENSE.md
• User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)
• How to test the Compatible Implementation(s) listed in _index.md above with the TCK (may be in UG)

7. TCK User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)

• Software requirements listed
• Installation and configuration described
• How to run tests
• Where to file challenges

8. Compatibility certification request

• Request follows template
• SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file
• Request issue has certification label.

9. TCK results summary

• Page is hosted by Compatible Implementation project
• Includes all information from certification request
• Summary includes number of tests passed, failed, errors
• SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file on cert request

10. Update Jakarta EE API jar

• Update the Jakarta EE API jar by submitting a PR to the jakartaee-api project that updates the version number of your API jar file.

[kwsutter]

Made a quick first pass, @lukasj. Thanks!

[lukasj]

@kwsutter your feedback has been addressed

[starksm64]

The user guide is referring to using Java SE 9 rather than 8. Section 4.1 on configuring the TCK against the RI talks about locations that do not exist in the TCK dist:
<TS_HOME>/bin/ts.jte - this looks to be <TS_HOME>/lib/ts.jte
<TS_HOME>/tools/ant/bin - there is no tools directory
<TS_HOME>/bin/build.xml - this looks to be <TS_HOME>/build.xml

[lukasj]

@starksm64 TCK should be fixed

[edbratt]

The Certification Request issue jakartaee/jaf-api#40 lists Java SE 11. I think this has changed since. Even if it does run on SE 11, we need to list SE 8 since that is now the requirement. Please review and confirm the TCK results demonstrate compatibility on SE 8.

[kwsutter]

LGTM. Thanks, @lukasj!

[kwsutter]

Oops, spoke too soon... The javadoc is missing the EFSL reference in the footer (as mentioned in the checklist). Also, not a requirement in the checklist, but there is no version specified in the rendered javadoc. Simple enough update since you have to add the EFSL reference anyway... Thanks!

[lukasj]

btw release date in the spec is apparently wrong now - it was expected to be April 2020 but at this point it is clear that even September is going to be very hard to make. Can someone suggest reasonable date I should update this (and everything depending on this) to? Thanks.

[edbratt]

We have been using September 2020.

…

On 8/26/2020 2:55 PM, Lukas Jungmann wrote: btw release date in the spec is apparently wrong now - it was expected to be April 2020 but at this point it is clear that even September is going very hard to make. Can someone suggest /reasonable/ date I should update this (and everything depending on this) to? Thanks. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/172*issuecomment-681143853__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!NHAOqRRe3rOQYkVwLb9PDAcCPBOkZyuOBjmCLodT-vglFi5KrUuwtxFKKSjJYxQ$>, or unsubscribe <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC5WM3R5XHUP57LDRQOPUZDSCWADJANCNFSM4NQ2J7UA__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!NHAOqRRe3rOQYkVwLb9PDAcCPBOkZyuOBjmCLodT-vglFi5KrUuwtxFK32jcBYI$>.

[lukasj]

the spec has been refreshed, now the date is at least after RC3. What exact date should I put into index.md (2020-08-15 is in the past) and on the project page (2020-08-01 is in the past as well). Thanks.

[starksm64]

Ok, this looks good to me at this point.

[edbratt]

Take your best shot when you think it will all be done. Sept. 15 or 30 are both fine with me. Later if that's your best estimate.

…

On 8/27/2020 12:46 AM, Lukas Jungmann wrote: the spec has been refreshed, now the date is at least after RC3. What date should I put into /index.md/ (2020-08-15 is in the past) and on the project page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jaf/releases/2.0__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!N7mxlULZMFqiny_x88gvb9wTldppMP2lb2mDEHRjqMoZqUv4c0wVM2_nPB8kx6A$> (2020-08-01 is in the past as well). Thanks. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/172*issuecomment-681715391__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!N7mxlULZMFqiny_x88gvb9wTldppMP2lb2mDEHRjqMoZqUv4c0wVM2_nhrMMMK0$>, or unsubscribe <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC5WM3VSQF2YSNN73CXFDT3SCYFO5ANCNFSM4NQ2J7UA__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!N7mxlULZMFqiny_x88gvb9wTldppMP2lb2mDEHRjqMoZqUv4c0wVM2_nUrGmeF8$>.

[lukasj]

My best shot dates were being missed since the mid April as I had no idea when there will be a reviewer having time to finish the review. This time I set Sept. 30 given that ballot, which has not been started yet needs 2 weeks (so were at Sept 10 if the ballot starts today) + at least a week is needed to follow all the required steps for the release (release review as such needs a week, that is Sept 17). Note that not having final version of activation in maven central is starting to seriously block my work in other projects depending on this one

[dblevins]

Can't quite tell from reading what the expected status should be. Looks like this PR is still in milestone status; spec says RC1, there's are no TCK or compatible implementation links in the _index.md

Not sure however as it's been marked final

[lukasj]

@dblevins one needs concrete pointers to each problem you see in order to say what is wrong and eventually fix it. From what I can see:

• spec document dated August 27, 2020 says Final version and includes NO rc1 strings
• spec index has a link to tck, proposed tck is linked from the PR description
• spec index lists jakarta activation to be a compatible implementation
• there is a PR for compatible implementation to update web page to include info about the new 2.0 release - it just made no sense to me to get it merged in June, nor it makes sense to me to merge it now

Did you forget to git pull?

[m0mus]

@starksm64 @kwsutter If there are no more comments can you start the ballot? This is a spec many other specs depend on. It would be nice to get it released asap and unblock them.

[dblevins]

Comments withdrawn. Looks like I was looking in the annotations/2.0 directory not the activation/2.0 directory. That explains my confusion.

Reviewing the changes it looks good. The one thing I'd request is we use a similar description for the compatible implementation like we did for the Activation 1.2 page "Eclipse implementation of Jakarta Activation 2.0" rather than "Jakarta Activation." On the Apache side we also have an implementation of Activation and it doesn't really have a name either, so we would more than likely follow the format and put "Apache implementation of Jakarta Activation 2.0"

[lukasj]

@dblevins fixed

[dblevins]

@lukasj thanks for the fast turnaround and sorry again for my prior confusion!

[kwsutter]

This one looks ready for ballot. @starksm64, will you do the honors as the mentor for this Specification PR? Thanks!

[starksm64]

Ballot email has been sent
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec/msg00804.html

[starksm64]

The specification vote has passed.

[starksm64]

• On ballot completion, the specification committee mentor:

• adds this final checklist to the main PR.
• adds the approved label to the PRs, and sends out the Ballot Summary per this template to the public Jakarta EE Specification Committee email list
• calculates the staged EFTL TCK signature and promotes it to the committee download area
• updates the specification page with the ballot results.
• merges the specification (and apidocs) PRs, ensuring the "date:" field in the _index.md file has an appropriate value to allow publishing.
• notifies the EMO of the ballot results by email to emo@eclipse-foundation.org
• creates an issue in the specification project that includes the following checklist for the specification project team:
  Tasks to complete the 2.0.0 release jaf-api#52