Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming and Packaging

Frankly Oracle is pretty clear on this thread as to what we should view to be an official Java API - an API that prominently features the word Java in both it's brand and package name.

The edge case examples you cite are very small parts of Java SE that reference other open standards because Java SE happens to integrate with those externally defined standards. The vast majority of Java SE and all of Java EE belongs in the java and javax packages - with clear intent for cohesion and consistency.

Trying to bicker otherwise frankly merely serves to derail a legitimate desire by quibbling about an edge case. Ask an average developer what they think an official Java API looks like and the answer is rightfully very straightforward.

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

-------- Original message --------
From: Heiko Rupp <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 1/17/18 3:59 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on   Java EE Naming and Packaging

On 17 Jan 2018, at 8:48, Guillermo González de Agüero wrote:

> Your understanding is correct. I mean it won't be possible to create
> new specs that fall into the same category as the existing ones (part
> of the Java official API). That was one of the biggest values of Java
> EE for me.

What is the "Java official API" ? You mean the SE ones?

> JSR 382. I wonder if the same path should be the way for EE4J: moving
> to the JCP *specific* components that should be part of the whole Java
> API.

I do not think this is blocked by a ee4j top level package name.
Just take JAX-P, the DOM comes from org.w3c and SAX stuff
from org.xml.sax - and still they are part of JavaSE's jre.

So if ee4j.fooBar is useful for JavaSE, it could be proposed
to the JCP for JavaSE and moved there with the existing
ee4j.* package (?)

Sorry If I still misunderstood you.
ee4j-community mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top