Compatibility certification request for InforSuite Application Server for Full Platform

[Aust1nYao]

• Organization Name ("Organization") and, if applicable, URL:
  
  Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co.,Ltd.
• Product Name, Version and download URL (if applicable):
  
  InforSuite Application Server V10
• Specification Name, Version and download URL:
  
  Jakarta EE Platform, Full Platform 8
• TCK Version, digital SHA-256 fingerprint and download URL:
  
  Jakarta EE Platform TCK 8.0.2,SHA-256:14a21b617bb646055c2952f1422ec04a71389fb37301e1c2969f6c3700aee965
• Public URL of TCK Results Summary:
  
  TCK Results Summary
• Any Additional Specification Certification Requirements:
  
  Jakarta Injection
  jakarta.inject-tck-1.0-bin.zip
  b679bac9b1057df894753892a880ba6ade530607dd811157106ed767aa26481f
  Jakarta Contexts and Dependency Injection
  cdi-tck-2.0.6-dist.zip
  75e969a7a3b3c77332154a2008309aad821a923d8684139242048a7640762808
  Jakarta Bean Validation
  beanvalidation-tck-dist-2.0.5.tar.gz
  05afb564efaa6d893dbeb32fb614d6e2bd18f09cf76244386f3b377d725b14b8
• Java runtime used to run the implementation:
  
  OracleJDK Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_211)
• Summary of the information for the certification environment, operating system, cloud, ...:
  
  OS Version:CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804 (Core)
  Database Version:10.10.2.0
• By checking this box I acknowledge that the Organization I represent accepts the terms of the EFTL.
• By checking this box I attest that all TCK requirements have been met, including any compatibility rules.

[ivargrimstad]

+1 LGTM

[hantsy]

@codff Can you provide a link to your product?

[hantsy]

@ivargrimstad This is the second product that declared passing the tck, but it did not provide a test-purpose product from their website.

I think Eclipse Foundation should consider updating the certification limitation to ensure the existence of the product to be certicated.

[ivargrimstad]

@hantsy Providing a download link is optional according to the Jakarta EE TCK process, https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/tckprocess/. I can bring it up on a spec committee call and see if this is something that should be changed or kept as is.

[TanjaObradovic]

@hantsy are you saying the the product link is missing on their website?
If so I see it here

[hantsy]

@hantsy are you saying the the product link is missing on their website?
If so I see it here

Have you tried it?

[TanjaObradovic]

I did, but I did not pay attention on the content of the zip file

[Aust1nYao]

@codff Can you provide a link to your product?
There is a button to apply for a trial version on our official website. You can get our product package in this way. The reason for not directly providing a download link is to prevent the product package from being obtained by criminals.This is not safe.

[Aust1nYao]

I did, but I did not pay attention on the content of the zip file

We did not directly provide the product download link, we think this is unsafe, and the product download link is optional in the above options, so this should not affect the product's compatibility certification, right?

[hantsy]

@ivargrimstad Personally, I hope Eclipse Foundation provides a more robust environment(such as a cloud environment) to force the vendor to run the TCK tests and also do some code instruments (such as which application server it is based on, and the similarity of some open-source application servers).

In the past 20 years, in China, as I know only Huihoo JFox(open source) and KingDee AS(commercial) have their team to build application servers, and in that period they maintained a powerful community for developers. After Java EE 5, it seems Kingdee gave up its original AS, the latest version is based on GF. JFox was discontinued for years.

Currently, the application server certification is so easy to get passed, just submitted the tck result, no one knows if there is a real product that existed. For example, I can download the source codes of GF, and rebrand it and pass the tck easily, it is a new product?

[hantsy]

@codff OK, you are right.

Just in my personal opinion, developers have no opportunity to experience it.

[Aust1nYao]

@TanjaObradovic
Hi Tanja,
Do I need other materials to submit? When will we pass the certification?

[edbratt]

The link to the TCK results on the TCK results page should just link to that file. The link through localhost won't work for anyone not logged into that computer. I'd recommend you change the URL to ./index.html (if that's what the file is actually called).
Could you please add TCK results for CDI, BV, and DI to the test results page?
Thank you.
(PS to answer your question about when certification is complete, see the TCK process guide. Look for the section titled Certification Resolution. If you have an urgent need, please let the Platform committer team know what time frame you are looking for.)

[Aust1nYao]

@edbratt
Hi edbratt,
I have modified the TCK result link according to your requirements. The link is "http://www.inforbus.com/InforsuiteAS/platform-tckresults/index1.html". I do have an urgent need, so I want to know the required time frame.Can you tell me or tell me who I should ask for?

[edbratt]

The link in your document at http://www.inforbus.com/InforsuiteAS/platform-tckresults/index1.html presents to me as localhost://InforsuiteAS/platform-tckresults/index1.html which won't work for anyone that clicks on it. Perhaps you cannot use a relative link for that server. I will notify the Platform committer team and see if we can get some reviewers. Without response, it will be approved 14 days after it is submitted.

[edbratt]

The SHA256 listed for the CDK TCK on the results page doesn't match the SHA listed here in the issue. I believe that the SHA in this issue is correct. Please update the results page.

Unfortunately, the link in this issue to the TCK summary (above) no longer works for me. In the issue (in your summary), the link resolves to:

• http://www.inforbus.com/InforsuiteAS/platform-tckresults/

But this no longer returns a valid page. Perhaps just set them all to their full URL:

• http://www.inforbus.com/InforsuiteAS/platform-tckresults/index1.html

I will send an e-mail to the platform committer discussion group to see if we can get this approved ahead of the 14 day "lazy consensus" target -- which would be Feb. 28th.

[kwsutter]

+1 to the various questions and concerns already posted about this Certification Request...

• The TCK results are not accessible via the link provided with this Issue.
• When I use the link provided by @edbratt, I'm able to get to some TCK results. But, as reported elsewhere, the link for the TCK results on this page has a url with "localhost" in the name and, of course, that will not resolve properly.
• Another comment from @edbratt that needs to be resolved... The SHA value on the TCK Results page does not match the one specified in this Issue.
• This issue references the additional testing for Debugging, but it's not listed on the TCK Results page.
• I would also challenge the idea that a download link is optional. I agree that it currently states "(if applicable)", but we have been pretty consistent that a Compatible Implementation must be long lived and available via a download link or download page. Otherwise, how does one know which version of the project actually passed the tests? Not only today, but down the road? All of the other CCRs that I have been reviewing in the past have been held to this standard. I'm not sure why we think this is not required. Thus, I agree with @hantsy.

I'm not ready to approve this request yet based on the above items.

[gerdogdu]

For example, I can download the source codes of GF, and rebrand it and pass the tck easily, it is a new product?

Actually, you can do this, at the moment nothing prevents you from doing this.

[gerdogdu]

There is a button to apply for a trial version on our official website. You can get our product package in this way

@codff Can you please show us where to apply for the trial version? I did not find any button at your website to request a trial version.

[Aust1nYao]

@kwsutter @edbratt
Hi
I have modified your questions, please click the link above to view the specific information.

[Aust1nYao]

There is a button to apply for a trial version on our official website. You can get our product package in this way

@codff Can you please show us where to apply for the trial version? I did not find any button at your website to request a trial version.

http://www.inforbus.com/contact.jsp On this page you can submit a trial version.

[gerdogdu]

http://www.inforbus.com/contact.jsp On this page you can submit a trial version.

It is impossible to request a trial from the page, http://www.inforbus.com/contact.jsp
It always gives us an error "Invalid Telephone number" and tried several phone format and nothing works!

[Aust1nYao]

http://www.inforbus.com/contact.jsp On this page you can submit a trial version.

It is impossible to request a trial from the page, http://www.inforbus.com/contact.jsp
It always gives us an error "Invalid Telephone number" and tried several phone format and nothing works!

I have updated the product package to http://www.inforbus.com/as.html, please click the download button to download the product package.

[hantsy]

@codff

D:\appsvr\inforsuiteAS\bin>set JAVA_HOME=D:\jdk8

D:\appsvr\inforsuiteAS\bin>asadmin start-domain
Waiting for domain1 to start .Error starting domain domain1.
The server exited prematurely with exit code 0.
Command start-domain failed.

Java 8 and Java 11 got the same result, can not start the server.

Obviously, this product is based on GF, and exactly I think it is a Payara redist(check the files in the docroot of production domain). I am not sure if the Payara logo etc can be free to use.

But from the website and the docs(the two IMAGES in the download archive, I think for a descriptive document using PDF is better), I can not find any description to differentiate this product and GF.

As a developer, to experience this product, I can not find a page on your website or other locations to describe how to get started.

[Aust1nYao]

@hantsy
The reason for the startup failure is that there is no authorization file.

[edbratt]

@hantsy all the changes I asked for are complete and appear satisfactory (download links and SHA256 codes). Thank you!

[kwsutter]

@kwsutter @edbratt
Hi
I have modified your questions, please click the link above to view the specific information.

@codff Thanks for making the requested updates. Based on the discussion on the Spec Community mailing list, I understand why a specific download link may not be applicable to all situations. Thus, I won't hold that requirement against my approval.

It sounds like others participating on this Issue still have some questions about the availability of your implementation. And, some questions about the documentation. I'll let those conversations continue for a bit.

But, you have responded to my questions. Thank you!

[Aust1nYao]

@kwsutter

I think this issue can be closed.
Regarding the issues raised by hantsy, please @hantsy leave your email or phone number. We can communicate about these issues at any time. There is no need to communicate under this issue.
Thank you!

[hantsy]

@kwsutter @edbratt Thanks for your effort to ensure there is a link to the real product. Now I know well what it is.

Personally, I want to know if there are some exciting features in the implementation, for example, the implementation of GF/Payara, WildFly, OpenLiberty are very different, thus we can compare the user experience between them. Obviously, after checking the content in the download archive, it will force me to treat it as another GF/Payara again.

[ivargrimstad]

I think we're good to go on this one.