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

Hello, Markus and Werner.

From my understanding talking to many different people, speed of the process surely isn't the main reason this move occurred. It is what is state by Bruno on September's minutes: "Bruno commented that there is a perception for the JCP is an Oracle organization"Â

Opinions I heard and remember:Â
So, the move of placing the Java EE technology under EE4J removes most, if not all, potential barrier for tech evolution. Other Java related techs (like Java ME and SE) have their own needs and evolutions, and each is going thru their "rethinking" - I'm leading the one for Java ME, and Java SE move to release train shows that rethinking is happening too.

Regards,



On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is exactly what I proposed at the panel discussion regarding future specification. No panel member found a good reason to proceed differently.

-Markus

Â

From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Werner Keil
Sent: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 14:49


To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs

Â

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)

Â

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.

Â

Werner

Â

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:

 Â1. 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@xxxxxxxxxxx>] 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@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 <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@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 <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@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.
>
> 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
*********************************************

Â


_______________________________________________
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