I realize I don't have any voice in this, but I did want to put some extra context to the need a RI. Over the last year we've held public presentations on 2 JSRs (1 with Rudy de Busscher, and 1 with Dmitry Kornilov). The RI available gives people a way to have a hands on experience with an upcoming spec, and there a) find potential bugs/things that the EG perhaps missed (and feed this back to the EG), and b) raise support&awareness for a JSR. I personally also feel that providing a RI should stay; setting a spec standard without a ready-to-go implementation raises the risk of it remainijg just that: a spec without support & usage for&by developers.
Again, I don't have any voice in this but just wanted to share my view.
Kind regards,
Erwin Hoeckx
Op 13 okt. 2017 om 11:44 heeft Dimitris Andreadis < dandread@xxxxxxxxxx> het volgende geschreven:
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:
_______________________________________________
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
|