Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Eclipse Jetty and EE4J

The absence of an RI and clearly delineated specification leads is an interesting approach indeed. It would be very good to hear end-user community feedback on this approach. Personally I liked these aspects of how Sun/JCP did things for several key reasons:

* You were guaranteed at least one working, compatible implementation with the specification.
* If there was any ambiguity, you could look at the RI for likely specification lead intent.
* You knew who was clearly responsible for specification delivery, following due process, resolving differences of opinion, ensuring transparency and at least listening to community feedback.

Whatever the weaknesses of this approach, at least it is something the community knows how to deal with (including complete absense and non responses from the specification lead).

The downsides of the alternative is basically unknown. The worst case is a situation where no one is responsible for anything because no one feels ownership of anything. A very close second situation of concern would be a narrow group of contributors that is not very responsive, flexible or transparent. I think many of us have seen these situations first hand in OSS projects that do not follow the Sun/JCP model.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Dimitris Andreadis <dandread@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/13/17 5:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Eclipse Jetty and EE4J

The absence of an RI is an interesting approach, i.e. if the Spec is complete enough to not have to look into the RI to understand under-specified aspects.

How about interop testing that is now performed against the RI? Should you be able to pick any other opernsource implementation and test against it, to claim compliance?

/Dimitris

Dimitris Andreadis
Senior Engineering Manager
Red Hat JBoss EAP/WildFly
On 13/10/2017 03:42, Greg Wilkins wrote:

On 13 October 2017 at 11:31, reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is interesting indeed. One of the things I will admit I was thinking about is whether Jetty could replace Grizzly as the Servlet RI and the Jetty folks lead Servlet in the future. Indeed I was wondering the same thing in the Servlet 4 time frame. Only a pipe dream perhaps?



While we certainly wish to be part of future the servlet spec into the future, I'm not sure that I would advocate a long term Jetty "leadership" any more than a Glassfish, Tomcat or Undertow one.  

Whatever the governance structure of the spec groups are, that should not provide any significant power to set the agenda nor technical direction to an individual or single implementer.    The goals and agenda for driving the spec forward should come from the community and the technical solutions should be determined collaboratively between implementers.  So perhaps "convener" is a better name than "leader" and as such it could be a rotating role to share the effort around? 

As for RI's, I'm not a big fan of them, as they facilitate lazy incomplete specs.   Any behaviour that is not explicitly described in specification and/or tests should be deemed undefined rather than follow one specific implementation that may be written to meet effort/commercial/scaling/performance criteria that cannot be applied generally to all implementations.

Jetty has a long history and firm focus on our target market(s), which is often apparent if you look in the gaps between that parts fixed by specification.  It is unlikely that our history and/or markets are appropriate to be a reference for other implementations that share neither that history and/or focus.    I certainly would not like to be constrained in the development of jetty so that we could not change unspecified behaviour for fear of changing the specification reference for all others!

I would much rather see multiple implementations developed during the specification process (as per the IETF working code mantra) together with a collaborative test suite.    Once a specification version is final, no implementation should be more special than any other.     Portability issues should be addressed by refinement of the specification and collaborative development of new tests.


regards


 
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/12/17 7:23 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: [ee4j-community] Eclipse Jetty and EE4J


The Eclipse Jetty team would like to extend a welcome to the EE4J project and the new contributors it will bring to the eclipse foundation.   Eclipse has been a good home for the Jetty project and has struct a good balance between the sometimes competing concerns of guidance, structure, support, autonomy and flexibility.

We are please to see an opening up of the specification processes and TCKs and we very much wish to play a part in the ongoing development/innovation of the Servlet specification and it interplay with the other key components within the EE space.

Our belief is that EE needs to develop into a more component oriented architecture where individual technologies can be more stand alone and/or plug/play rather than be built only as part of monolithic whole.     The Jetty project already uses/provides components from/to other contributors to the EE ecosystem and we would like to see a spec and test environment develop that would facilitate further such collaboration, so we can all concentrate of improving and innovating within our core features.

We look forward to see how the governance within and between the EE specifications is developed and hope to play a part in both the formulation of that and the execution.

regards

--

_______________________________________________
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