| Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs |
Werner
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: JCP and existing specs (Heiko Rupp)
2. Re: JCP and existing specs (Werner Keil)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:23:36 +0100
From: "Heiko Rupp" <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "EE4J community discussions" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs
Message-ID: <C88A7636-D551-488C-8275-406D332294EE@xxxxxxxxxx >
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> 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. :)
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:49:18 +0100
From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs
Message-ID:
<CAAGawe3ehPmEnGRWk9VnNwt5T7crr r3wNQ3s3SZB6ay1uH=0xQ@mail. gmail.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I suppose, "shorten their process" at the JCP could be done in ways we see
for Java SE and OpenJDK now (while still in the EC I was among the first
members who suggested fewer Java SE JSRs because e.g. 308, 310 and others
were just empty shells with no spec or value as a JSR)
If the JCP was still to standardize something around EE4J then maybe like
the quarterly OpenJDK releases every 1 or 2 years there could be an EE4J
"Umbrella" JSR.
Werner
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:05 PM, <ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org > wrote:
> Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: JCP and existing specs (Mark Little)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:05:35 +0000
> From: Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs
> Message-ID: <1971F4F0-A0D1-4447-9DDB-F8E4E837164A@xxxxxxxxxx >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks for clarifying, Markus :)
>
> > On 1 Dec 2017, at 13:04, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > Thanks, I see, my text was not clear enough. Thanks for pointing this
> out.
> >
> > What I actually meant was "Some people working at PMC members multiply
> explained (but not officially declared in the name of the PMC) that the
> focus of the work at EE4J is to provide code in the sense of API, RI, TCKs,
> but that it is not decided yet if future standardization will happen, or
> which external standardization organization will possibly do a later
> standardization as an official Java standard. It was clearly said
> (unfortunately I can't tell by whom) that the Eclipse Foundation is
> definitively not a Standardization Organization, and it was agreed by some
> people working at PMC members that it could still be the JCP if they
> shorten their processes, but in future this is might not be the only
> choice." At time of writing, only the JCP is able to do such official
> standardization, as a matter of fact, hence the situation is unchanged, but
> my text now should be such politically correct that nobody feels offended
> anymore (I hope).
> >
> > I hope it is clear now and sorry for the confusion.
> >
> > BTW, it would be great if the PMC would give official answers so
> discussion and misunderstandings could stop.
> >
> > Regarding the panel discussion, let's agree that we have different
> understanding of what the average joe takes home in the end. My assumption
> is that the typical audience would not differentiate between "somebody from
> Red Had said that" and "the PMC said that", as it was announced as an
> official EE4J panel by the Eclipse Foundation, and it was moderated by Mike
> Milinkovic. Anyways, I think this discussion came to an end. <>
> > -Markus
> >
> >
> > From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org >] On Behalf Of Mark Little
> > Sent: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 13:50
> > To: EE4J community discussions
> > Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs
> >
> >
> > On 1 Dec 2017, at 12:45, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Markus, that may be what you meant to say but you said: "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"
> >
> > which clearly states that the EE4J PMC said that we would use the JCP.
> The PMC did not say that. Individuals on the PMC who said that to you will
> only have been expressing a personal view. I?ve said the same thing around
> JavaOne, for instance. Doesn?t mean it is coming from the PMC or that it
> will be the way things evolve. Let?s please keep to the facts.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I disagree. I?ve been on panels where I represent Red Hat and if I have
> to make a personal opinion I call it out as such; if I make a statement on
> behalf of Red Hat I do likewise.
> >
> >
> > What people expect from such panels are statements, not opinions.
> >
> > I don?t agree. It can be a mix.
> >
> >
> > And what people clearly assume is that someone invited for Red Hat
> speaks for Red Hat, and someone invited for IBM speaks for IBM.
> >
> > And there you have it: someone from Red Hat speaks for ? Oh Red Hat. But
> NOT for the PMC. Surely you see the difference?!
> >
> >
> >
> > -Markus
> >
> >
> > From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org >] 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 <mailto:
> 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 I?m
> unaware of this. In fact I don?t 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.
> > -Markus
> >
> >
> > From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org >] 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 <
> 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
> <mailto: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.
> > -Markus
> > ? <>
> > From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org >] 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Leo.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ee4j-community mailing list
> > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse.org >
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- <community
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- >community
> >
> > ---
> > Mark Little
> > mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ee4j-community mailing list
> > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse.org >
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- <community
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- >community
> >
> > ---
> > Mark Little
> > mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ee4j-community mailing list
> > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse.org >
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- <community
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- >community
> ---
> Mark Little
> mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- community/attachments/
> 20171201/12cf3a50/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 4, Issue 15
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- >community/attachments/ 20171201/d0ae3cf1/attachment. html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 4, Issue 16
*********************************************