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

Just to throw my small spin on this, but what gives us the need for EE4J standards to be JCP approved standards?

If we were trying to create JavaâÂStandards, right now our only legal/valid choice would be the JCP. Ans, as you posted, it would be up to Oracle to extend this capability to any new standards organization.

However, we could easily have a standardization org for EE4J (or, at least, the currently unnamed specs project).
Under such an org, we could standardize any spec or API as "EE4J compliant" or "EE4J compatible", or whatever term we'd prefer.

The very fact that EE4J (at least the specs and kits projects) are going to be, from now on, the ones to set what future versions of the Java EE (replace this by whatever name we end up deciding for our projects) must contain pretty much implies that the standard for NewJavaEE will be set by EE4J, not the JCP (which will continue to handle standards for Java SE, and all Java EE versions), since it will be our specs that implementers will have to follow to be "EE4J compatible/certified", the same way that current standardization for Java pretty much means being JSR compliant and passing the TCKs.

My view on the current state was something like:

JCP outputs JSRs with TCKs, your implementation is compliant, and gets the "Javaâ Standardized" bling, which means it will run correctly on the JRE.
EE4JSpecs (or whatever) outputs ESDs (EE4J Spec Doc, or similar) with ECTs (EE4J Compat. Tests, etc), your implementation is compliant, and gets the "EE4J Standardized" bling, which means it is EE4J compliant (and should run correctly within any EE4J Compliant Server).



Mariano Amar

Senior Consultant

email/hangouts:Âmariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx
skype:Âmarianoamar

AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTRÃNICO

Esta comunicaciÃn contiene informaciÃn que es confidencial y tambiÃn puede contener informaciÃn privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que cualquier distribuciÃn, copia o uso de esta comunicaciÃn o la informaciÃn que contiene està estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha recibido esta comunicaciÃn por error por favor notifÃquelo por correo electrÃnico(info@xxxxxxxxxx) o por telÃfono (+54 11 3249 7503)

This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx) or phone (+54 11 3249 7503)


On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Heiko Rupp <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
would not differentiate between "somebody from Red Had said that" and "the PMC said that", as it was announced as an

And then I never remotely said that I could be part of the PMC. :)

_______________________________________________
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