Scott Marlow

I added a call to TSNamingContext.dumpJndi("", new InitialContext()) if the `@EJB` bean is null: > INFO: [APPCLIENT-out] 2. jndi dump (show name classname pair): 'com_sun_ts_tests_common_vehicle_Stateless3VehicleBean#com.sun.ts.tests.common.vehicle.stateless3.Stateless3VehicleIF: javax.naming.Reference' > Nov 26, 2024...

Hibernate ORM 6.4.4.Final is currently using 2.14.1 as is the ORM `main` branch. Let's see what @yrodiere has to say about Search but I think 7.1.0.Final is on `2.15.2` and...

> > I suspect ORM is not actually that deeply coupled with Jackson, at least if it's only about JSON columns, but I might be missing something. If coupling is...

> Hibernate ORM 6.5 works fine with Jackson 2.17: [hibernate/hibernate-orm#8284](https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/8284) I'll leave it to @scottmarlow to upgrade to Hibernate ORM 6.5 in WildFly, as WildFly is currently using Hibernate ORM...

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19306 is now for upgrading WildFly to the Hibernate ORM 6.6.0.Final release. From Hibernate ORM 6.6.0.Final: > settings.gradle: def jacksonVersion = version "jackson", "2.17.0" > settings.gradle: library( "jackson", "com.fasterxml.jackson.core", "jackson-databind"...

For reference, the challenge test link is https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/10.0.x/src/com/sun/ts/tests/servlet/api/jakarta_servlet_http/cookie/URLClient.java#L360

Note that the Specification pull request will reference https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/issues/701+ https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/issues/493 so that both issues are clearly listed. Any objections?

[pmd1nh](https://github.com/pmd1nh) asked: > @markt-asf any objection to marking this issue as `TCK:accepted`? Then we can work on a PR for the TCK. [markt-asf](https://github.com/markt-asf) responded: > I'd argue it is a...

> I'd argue it is a duplicate of https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/issues/493 - I'd rather any addition to the 6.0 exclusion list referenced the original issue. I suppose that we could update the...

> > I'd argue it is a duplicate of #493 - I'd rather any addition to the 6.0 exclusion list referenced the original issue. > > I suppose that we...