Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Wider Community Involvement

Agreed. I think there’s a lot of pent up demand from communities to get more involved and we should encourage that and work to lower any barriers to adoption and participation. Of course there will always be people and companies who legitimately cannot get as involved as they might like for reasons including time, but I’d be happy with them still giving some help now and then than for them to assume they simply can’t help at all.


On 25 Oct 2017, at 20:58, Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Reza,
That’s a pretty downbeat view. I think if we look and ask there may be way more interest than we think in Consumers becoming involved in helping drive EE4J standards and apis. There are great advantages and solid business reasons for Consumers to get involved for what are relatively low costs.
For consultancies it provides competitive advantage to help shape EE4J both in knowledge and kudos as well as fundamentally good marketing copy.
For End Users they can ensure longevity, stability and choice. While at the same time providing great input into ensuring EE4J innovates and meets their application platform needs in the future.
JavaEE will be open-source under EE4J surely this is a great opportunity for Consumers to get involved as the barriers will be low? I remain upbeat that we will find contributors from the wider Community not just vendors and hero individual contributors. It is beholden on the EE4J PMC to market EE4J as actively seeking wider Consumer contributions and to be driven for Consumers not vendors.
We have a proverb where I come from “Shy Bairns get Nowt” which I think is apt here.
From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Reza Rahman
Sent: 25 October 2017 19:29
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J
I was really thinking long and hard whether to respond further. I do think there is something substantive to add.
From a purely personal standpoint, I agree consumers and beneficiaries of a technology need to give back. Indeed that is the basic principle under which I personally have operated with regards to Java EE for more than a decade now.
The reality is far from that simple.
From my company standpoint, my management has made it amply clear my first priority is paying clients, not the advancement of any given technology. They have been willing to go so far as to look the other way on how I spend my free time (aka not asking why I am not putting in 60-70 billable hours) and not making me take vacation when I speak at conferences as long as I figure out my own travel expenses. That is more than they do to support any of the hundreds of other technologies my company benefits from. I suspect these accommodations are made only because they know if they do not make these compromises I will be easily able to find someone else that will. This last point has deeper practical implications.
The reality is that technology is competitive. There are lots of companies that depend on technologies like Java SE, Scala, Spring, Akka, Play, etc. The companies that firmly stand behind these technologies do not expect consumers to pay anything back directly. Java EE is no different in their eyes. It is an almost laughably impractical idea for me to go to even my most committed Java EE clients and tell them they should contribute back time, money and resources to Java EE. They will straight up tell me I should find another more supportive client and they are moving to Spring themselves. Pivotal won't ask them to contribute anything back and neither will their favorite Spring consultant...
I do hope these are competitive  realities the principal stakeholders of EE4J take well to heart. There are lots of people in the community that have and will continue to contribute plenty to Java EE. If we now expect these people to suddenly do exponentially more, this is an effort that is no doubt destined for failure, even in the short term. Java EE vendors do need to figure out shortly how they plan to effectively fill the gap that Sun/Oracle will now leave behind (or hopefully even exceed it).
On Oct 25, 2017 10:40 AM, "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Reza,


I think “vendors” will pick up a lot of the work. However not all EE4J vendors are or will be big global companies 😉. Also it is not only vendors that employ developers with the ability to contribute.  


I think the word Community encompasses a lot more than the individual contributing in their spare time. Many of the companies that actually made “tons of money out of this stuff” are actually not vendors but large consultancy companies and consumers of JavaEE technology that build bespoke, internal or ISV solutions on JavaEE. I would guess that the global/big regional consultancy companies make many times more money out of JavaEE and other Java frameworks than the vendors.  In an ideal world we would see Consumers of the technology providing technical effort in driving forward specifications. Consumers IMHO actually know more about how the apis should look and work when developing applications than application server implementers do.


Eclipse Foundation also has a specific membership type called “Strategic Consumers” organisations that are not vendors. I would love to see large consultancy companies, ISVs and End Users join as Strategic Consumers to drive forward EE4J and commit or sponsor development effort. Strategic Consumers are rewarded with reduced membership fees the more developers they commit! The move to Eclipse Foundation explicitly enables these sort of contributions. At the end of the day what is the bottom-line impact of a couple of developers working full time on EE4J for a consultancy company with 100s – 1000s of developers compared to the benefits they receive through increased knowledge, influence and productivity?


I encourage everybody out there that works in a large consultancy, large end user or large ISV to speak to their management about becoming a Strategic Member. Alternatively they could ensure their corporations buy support contracts and/or licenses from the vendors so they can contribute more 😊. Alternatively they could sponsor individuals or employees to work exclusively on EE4J.


This is a unique opportunity and a call to arms for all organisations that benefit from EE4J; vendors, ISVs, consultancy and end user organisations.





From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Reza Rahman
Sent: 16 October 2017 16:09
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J


I really hope for the sake of so many people around the world that depend on or should depend on Java EE that you are right.

It dismays me when people that make/made tons of money out of this stuff look to people that make no money or pittances to move the technology forward (in fact in some cases these people sacrifice their family, free time and day jobs for years to help with this stuff in any way that they can). This is especially true for technologies like Servlet, JPA and so many others that Sun/Oracle has invested thousands of full time employee man-hours over many years for them to get anywhere.

I can guarantee that other than a few die-hards like me in the short run, no one in the community will contribute anything until they see a serious commitment from vendors to move this work forward that at least somewhat matches what Oracle will quite obviously not do any more. Enough said.

On 10/16/17 5:48 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:


Mark Little said "...the community has to also step forward and help make this a success...".

You said "...vendors will still need to do a lion's share of the work much...".

These are not mutually exclusive statements. Both represent matters of degree. I have personally been pretty amazed at the energy shown on this list over the past week.

On 2017-10-16 9:43 AM, reza_rahman wrote:

While I am sure the community can pick some things up just like they did for Java EE 8, the reality is probably that most folks are just like me - we will try to do what we can when the demands of the day job (the stuff that actually helps pay the bills) and family (the stuff that actually really matters at the end of the day) is done. Realistically, this probably means about 15-20 hours a week on good weeks.


What this means is that if this effort is to be in any way competitive, vendors will still need to do a lion's share of the work much like is the case for Spring, the Lightbend stack, etc. The secret sauce for Spring in particular is that Pivotal has no hesitation investing in the Spring stack even when they do not directly make money from it. If vendors do not have the similar mindset here, I agree it's wise to stop wasting any more effort, throw in the towel now and move on to bigger and better things. While an effort driven mostly by community can move forward for shorts bursts of time, the reality is that it is no match for professionals getting paid full time to do 50-60 hours of work each week.


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


-------- Original message --------

From: Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 10/16/17 8:06 AM (GMT-05:00) 

To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J 



On 12 Oct 2017, at 14:48, reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


More specifically, is Red Hat going to continue to move CDI and Bean Validation forward?


Yes, where forward movement makes sense.


What about JPA? I don't think anyone in the community can realistically move that forward. I have similar concerns for Servlet (and perhaps a more reactive alternative to Servlet). These APIs are so complex that you really need dedicated folks that work for a vendor full time to move them forward.


We will remain active in other JSRs and help with new efforts where it makes sense. But the community has to also step forward and help make this a success because if it remains solely in the hands of the vendors then maybe we should just roll everything back.



-------- Original message --------

From: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: 10/12/17 7:44 AM (GMT-05:00) 

To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J 



On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:35 AM Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For the avoidance of doubt and for those who haven't been paying
attention :) Red Hat is committed to working for the continuing
success of Java EE and now EE4J. We intend to put forward various
individuals who may be relevant to lead various JSRs if no other
appropriate community members step forward as well as the JSRs we lead
currently. When the time is right (note, when not if) we'll also work
to ensure EE4J and Eclipse MicroProfile collaborate in a meaningful
manner and hopefully "merge" in whatever way is appropriate and
determined by both communities.


I'm assuming that the last "we" here is the MicroProfile community and not RedHat, correct?



ee4j-community mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit


ee4j-community mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Mark Little

JBoss, by Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)

Back to the top