| Re: [ee4j-community] EE4J and the JCP |
I agree with Kevin's assessment on this. Efficiency is also just one issue at the JCP. The bigger issue is direct and indirect Oracle control, especially at the EC level. While these are solvable problems, the question we should ask is whether it is worth solving instead of using avenues that are already far more vendor neutral.Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone_______________________________________________-------- Original message --------From: Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@xxxxxxxxx>Date: 10/9/17 10:59 AM (GMT-05:00)To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] EE4J and the JCP-- KevinI can understand Michael's and others concerns voiced in this thread... Splintering the Java community is definitely not a goal of this EE4J movement. But, the JCP has not demonstrated that it can move faster. Yet... Granted, there is a requirement for Java SE to have it move faster to meet the newly proposed 6 month cycles, but it hasn't been proven yet. The MicroProfile community has shown that it can innovate on a faster schedule with it's recent MP 1.1 and 1.2 releases. I'm not trying to say that the MicroProfile efforts produced "standards", but I am noting that innovation needs a lighter weight process in order to compete and succeed in this cloud-native, microservices world.The specification process in EE4J has not been determined yet. Maybe if the JCP proves that it can process JSRs in a more expedient manner, then maybe it can or will be considered as part of the EE4J specification process. In the mean time, we have to leave other options on the table.On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi All,I can clarify some of this. Responses inlineOn 9 October 2017 at 10:00, Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi,As I said on Markus thread, my concern is that we might not be moving Java EE to a different place, but discontinuing Java EE and creating a new project based on it. On that matter, we'll need clarification from Oracle and the participating vendors: are you really open sourcing what's already there, or are you making Java slimmer by moving away everything but the standard edition? In the second case (which I hope is not the case), I'd sadly understand that a common standards body wouldn't make sense.The JCP process has been blamed for being too slow, but how will it allow Java SE to release a new version every 6 months? Surely that will need some changes on the JCP. Could those changes also help us? Should we participate on those discussions asking for our needs?Yes the JCP is altering its process, primarily cutting down the minimum and maximum times for various phases and voting periods. This is being worked on in conjunction with the folks from OpenJDK and Oracle and I everyone is comfortable with the changes being proposed (just needs to go through various votes to pass).In my opinion it's still too early to abandon the JCP. We should see before if it can still be changed to take everyone's concerns into account (Java SE, Java ME and Java EE) and in case it's too difficult, I'm with you and Markus, we should create a common replacement.I think the EE4J community will need to define a *vendor neutral* body to effectively replace the JCP with regards to defining specifications and certifications for whatever the community produces.The JCP is the best construct we could have at the time. But because it is 'heavily influenced' by a single vendor (Oracle) it's simply not the true neutral body that we all want going forwards. That's not to say that the JCP and/or Oracle did a bad job in stewarding Java EE / Enterprise Java, but a more open body will certainly be an improvement.PS: could you please point me to some link on the Java ME movement you mention? I haven't found any information about it.Gluon, V2Com and other ME companies are trying to get ME kick started again. please contact pmo@xxxxxxx to get involved.Cheers,Martijn (London Java Community - JCP EC member)Regards,Guillermo González de AgüeroEl lun., 9 oct. 2017 a las 4:19, Michael Nascimento (<misterm@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:_______________________________________________Consolidating my thoughts here with the correct thread name: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.To Mike Milinkovich, following up the question I've made: 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
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