Add a TomEE 2.0 build profile

[johnament]

Let's add a TomEE 2.0 build profile, so that we can start testing out the new version of TomEE in web profile.

Note that we'll need to use TomEE plus for now. I think at some point we need to add support for different profiles, and perhaps different test suites per container based on what should work.

[arun-gupta]

How much Java EE 7 is there in TomEE 2.0 ?

[johnament]

It's by no means final, but looking at the contents I see:

• JBatch (BatchEE is a fork of the RI)
• JAX-RS
• CDI
• JAX-WS
• JSON
• EJB

There's still some gaps around JMS and JPA

[arjantijms]

There's btw also quite a bunch of Java EE 7 in the latest Liberty releases (see https://developer.ibm.com/wasdev/2014/09/12/announcing-liberty-profile-september-beta)

Quickly glancing over the release data it seems to have;

• JBatch 1.0
• Concurrent Utils 1.0
• JAX-RS 2.0
• JMS 2.0
• JPA 2.1
• BeanValidation 1.1
• JSON-P 1.0
• EJB 3.2 Lite
• Servlet 3.1

[arun-gupta]

Add profiles for both of them ?

I asked one of the IBM guys (@notatibm) to add a profile for Liberty but he seems to be busy. Moreover they were not able to parse a Servlet 3.1 DD so most of their tests would fail anyway.

[arjantijms]

I haven't tested a Servlet 3.1 web.xml yet, but it's clearly early days for Liberty Java EE 7 (just as it's for TomEE 2.0 I guess).

Then again, one way of testing is that in the beginning indeed everything fails and that over time the pass rate slowly but steadily increases ;)

[radcortez]

I see no problem in adding additional Applications Servers, but shouldn't we wait until we have an official final release for Java EE 7?

[johnament]

What do you mean, java we 7 is final. Or that we should wait for the servers to go final before seeing if the examples work?

[arun-gupta]

I'd love to see upcoming server profiles being added and see steady progress. Seems like my request will got lost in IBM. Who wants to own Liberty Profile ?

@arjantijms seems like you will add TomEE profile ?

[johnament]

I added a new ticket for liberty - #263

[radcortez]

@johnament I meant wait for an official Java EE 7 release for each of the servers. We can work on it, but I just fear that lot of things may fail.

[aslakknutsen]

I see no problem with adding non finished profiles. One of the original reasons I wanted Arquillian tests in JavaEE Samples was to see what works where, spec defined or not.

TomEE should be no problem as that is all Open Source. Not 100% sure about the Liberty Profile, but if it follows the same Developer License as WAS you're not allowed to run it on a build server. (e.g. we could add the profile, but can't automate the test runs)

[NottyCode]

There are a few comments here about the Liberty profile. Since #263 has been raised since most of them I have placed my thoughts regarding the Liberty profile as a comment on that issue rather than risk further diverting this issue from the original intent.

[radcortez]

I'm working in adding TomEE to the samples.

[radcortez]

A few preliminary results:

batch - No Implementation Provided
cdi - Failing a few tests. Most are related with the absence of a beans.xml
concurrency - Failing a few tests. DefaultManagedExecutorService not binded to JNDI comp/DefaultManagedExecutorService
ejb - Failure in TimerService
el - Missing Lambda Support
interceptor - OK
jacc - No Implementation Provided
jaspic - No Implementation Provided
javamail - OK
jaxrs - Failing a few tests. Related with other specs, like json-p and jpa
jaxws - OK
jca - OK
jms - Test Failures
jpa - No support for JPA 2.1 yet
jsf - A few failures
json-p - OK
jta - Failing a few tests. Related with other specs, like jpa
servlet - Failing a few tests. Related with security stuff
validation - Test Failures
websocket - OK

[arjantijms]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Roberto Cortez notifications@github.com
wrote:

A few preliminary results:

[...]
jacc - Tests Failures
jaspic - Tests Failures

This is expected as TomEE implements neither. It's still on my TODO to
provide a JASPIC implementation for TomEE. The tests in this project were
actually partially intended to test that implementation against ;)

Kind regards,
Arjan