[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs



yes, I mean 2017. Already living in next fiscal year. ;-)


I never said the PMC made an *official statement* in this direction. I just said PMC members told this. If the majority of attending PMC members share a vision in such a panel, what one takes home is the impression that this is what the PMC will effectively do.


The attendees:


Mike Milinkovic

David Delabasse, Dmitry Kornilov - Oracle

Heiko Rupp - Red Hat

Kevin Sutter - IBM


If we now start to discuss the difference between personal statements of members of EE4J members then we should not organize EE4J panels anymore. What people expect from such panels are statements, not opinions. And what people clearly assume is that someone invited for Red Hat speaks for Red Hat, and someone invited for IBM speaks for IBM.





From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Little
Sent: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 12:15
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs



On 1 Dec 2017, at 10:57, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The plan to code first and then ask another institution for standardization was publicly confirmed at EclipseCon 2018


I suspect you mean 2017!

earlier this year by Mike Milinkovic and the attending part of the PMC.


That does not mean the PMC has made a statement. I can make a statement here and now but it would no more be an official statement from the PMC than something any other PMC member might make AS AN INDIVIDUAL. Please do not make tenuous links. If a statement was made on behalf of the PMC Iâm unaware of this. In fact I donât even think the PMC was in place by that time.

Check the YouTube video of the EE4J Panel (about 14:00 or later). Whether or not this is JCP is a fruitless discussion: As a matter of fact, at the moment only the JCP is legally and organisational able to perform such a standardization in the next months, and they did not stop any of their work right now or changed any of their processes; they even had elections recently. Maybe there might be different organization later, but none such is under real construction right now.




From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Stark
Sent: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 10:07
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs


Where has this been declared? It certainly is not defined in the https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j/charter, and frankly flies in the face of moving things to Eclipse.


On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Leo, this is not true. The EE4J PMC multiply explained that future versions of existing specs will be developed at the Eclipse Foundation, but *will* be standardized still through the JCP.


From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leonardo Lima
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. November 2017 19:46
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs


Hello, Guillermo.


"Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation?"


My understanding is that this means that there might be Maintenance Releases of these JSRs fixing bugs or updating the JCP version, for example.


New versions of the Java EE / EE4J Specs would *not* be done thru the JCP.






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)