Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] On Naming

I was in the BV EG back then... It was around 1.5 year until Proposed Final Draft, when the process was heavier than today. But I understand your perception is it's too heavyweight anyway.

My main concern is that, while we might be doing something better suited for the Java EE community, we're scattering the Java community even more. OpenJDK has its own contribution agreements, rules and process; we're about to create something different here; everything else left in the JCP will follow the current process; apparently Java ME wants to do something similar to EE. So this new reality will mean one's contributions to one part of Java means nothing when they contribute to the rest, there'll be a lot to learn process-wise, paperwork to be filled... We're actually making it harder for people to contribute to Java *in general*.

While I understand OpenJDK is kind of a "sideways" situation, I'd like to propose we pursue something here in terms of specification process that can be used for all Java specifications in the future that find the JCP too heavyweight and problematic, so that we don't have one solution for every facet of Java. Something like "Open Standards for Java". If key players as IBM, Red Hat, Tomitribe et al and some communities, as the LJC, conclude the JCP is not the way to do things going forward, I'm making a plea for JCP.next to be established here - and not just EE4J spec process; otherwise, we're fragmenting the community even more and making contributions to Java, as a whole, even more painful.

Regards,
Michael

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
CDI and BV took longer than you might think to come to completion.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Michael Nascimento <misterm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
By that you mean BV 1.0 and CDI 1.0 suffered to go through the process? At least for BV, I remember once Red Hat took it over, it was completed in a good pace.

Regards,
Michael

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Revising an existing specification, as we have done with CDI and BV, is very different from doing something new.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Michael Nascimento <misterm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:
  1. There is a strong desire for a lighter-weight, more nimble process.
Given Bean Validation and CDI seem to work just fine through the JCP, could someone from Red Hat comment on their perception about this point?
 
  1. The IP and process rules around the JCP are complex, and almost impossible to change. The intent will be to create a new process which provides a level playing field for all of the participants and stakeholders. A more open and egalitarian process will hopefully result in more participants and investment in the platform.

If the Eclipse Foundation is the one submitting the JSRs, wouldn't all IP from the specs belong to the Foundation? Wouldn't it be open and egalitarian?

Regards,
Michael

Virus-free. www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community



_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community



_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community



_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community



Back to the top