Re: [ee4j-community] Use of javax.* in new EE4J projects

[reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>]

To be completely honest we in the Java EE Guardians community fully expect the "agenda driven" negativity to continue full force if not escalate. We will do what we can to counter it as we have as a community from the beginning and I dare say for the first time in a long time as a unified effort on behalf of Java EE.

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

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

From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: 11/13/17 3:01 PM (GMT-05:00)

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

Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Use of javax.* in new EE4J projects

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and say that sadly the Java EE brand is seen as a negative thing. 

Well, yes and no. 

As I mentioned earlier, Java EE is for some strongly associated with the concept of application servers, and application servers on their turn are for a subset of those associated with specifically WebSphere 6, which on its turn is associated with keeping developers constrained (unable to make any choices, just deliver code as wars or ears). Whether any of this is actually true or logical in practice barely matters, as people seem to have this perception, which is what matters most.

Obviously though, there are communities of both competing products and actual competitors that very likely have an interest in keeping this negativity alive. What's to say any new name would not be targeted right away with the same kind of negative press?

Additionally, Java EE *is* a well known brand, people have heard about it, thousands of articles exists about it, hundreds of books, etc etc. Companies do know it, and do ask for it.

If/when a new name is chosen we shouldn't forget having to guard in some way against new negativity and to make the name as well known as Java EE was.

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

 

Unfortunately we were never able to shake off the dire reputation of J2EE, despite the vast improvements to the platform.

I think a clean break is actually a *good* thing.

Cheers,
Martijn

On 12 November 2017 at 18:05, reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am very glad someone like yourself from the vendor/EC side see this as an issue and is willing to publicly identify this as an issue.

This is by far one of the biggest issues we have identified so far in the Java EE Guardians community. As an initial step, we have asked the community to send Oracle and other key EE4J stakeholders direct and personal feedback on this: https://form.jotform.com/72648425384161. I suspect it is the sole matter with regards to EE4J that these folks have been reached out to about the most.

Unfortunately clearly the community has still not really been heard on this matter. While I am sure the root cause of this issue is Oracle's legal and branding departments being overly rigid, this is something that Oracle executives can intervene on if they deemed it worthy of solving.

From the Java EE Guardians community, our likely next steps are to arrive at a joint open letter asking EE4J stakeholders to address this issue - Oracle being the main party of our request. Any support you can lend us in this regard, even if only moral, would be helpful and highly appreciated.

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

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

From: Greg Luck <gluck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 11/3/17 2:07 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [ee4j-community] Use of javax.* in new EE4J projects

Hi

Had a call with Mike today about moving JCache across to EE4J.

We have JCache 1.1 in the JCP review process now and it should be out in a few weeks’ time. So we could consider moving after that point. 

The biggest issue to me is that, at least currently, any new APIs will not be allowed to use javax. Today we use javax.cache. This would mean that JCache 2 would need to change its package name. We have 13 implementations out there and a huge amount of user code that uses javax.cache. This would be an extremely disruptive change.

In our case Oracle is a copyright owner along with myself for the spec. As an owner, Oracle if they wished, should be able to allow JCache 2 to continue to use the javax.cache package even though the process has changed from JCP to the yet unnamed and to be formed Eclipse Community Process.

Interested in anyone’s thoughts on this. 

Regards

Greg Luck

_______________________________________________
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