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
Heiko,

Thanks for bringing that up here, too. I tried to mention it in the Guardians list earlier that Java SE (not just the JDK) uses up to half a dozen packages like org.w3c, org.xml and both "java" or "javax" depending on the library. It was either misunderstood or brushed away and some of my threads there even got opressed while I only gave the example you just did.

Another reply to a message of mine that did make it through could be misunderstood because of the natural language. The message has cyrillic metadata, so it's author must be from Russia or Bulgaria.

>here is official response. You have to use new name. And you can't use word "Java". I know there was already an attempt to pick some new name. As for me it does not critical what the new name is and I do not see any 
> problem with picking new name. Name is not what defines success.

>You can call it "Enterprise Profile" by analogy with "MicroProfile" or whatever else.

>Or call it whatever fancy name you come up with - e.g. "Saturn" or does not really matter what other name.

I don't recall the word "Java" is suddenly banned from a future brand completely, only what Mike and others explained here more than enough. That e.g. it must not start with "Java" or contain "Java EE". Or was there a new development this guy heard and others missed?

Werner 



On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:09 AM, <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: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming
      and Packaging (Heiko Rupp)
   2. Re: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on    Java EE Naming
      and Packaging (Werner Keil)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:59:31 +0100
From: "Heiko Rupp" <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "EE4J community discussions" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
        on Java EE Naming and Packaging
Message-ID: <5117C699-F04D-42B9-8B01-F03648FBA1CB@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

On 17 Jan 2018, at 8:48, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero 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.


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:09:44 +0100
From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
        on      Java EE Naming and Packaging
Message-ID:
        <CAAGawe3Ev7ff_3ohu9k3nUQ9H_9+9OUmMMgHnRnBpnrJ+H2FrQ@xxxxxxxail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 Guillermo,

Please note, JSR 382 like JCache, JavaMoney or even JSON-P (although it was
shipped with Java EE) is completely independent of Java EE APIs. It has no
dependencies to Servlet, CDI, etc. in the API and SPI and can or rather
should be used both for server/enterprise and standalone, desktop RCP or
mobile/IoT applications based on Java.

So while an Eclipse project which under the right circumstances may even be
organized under the EE4J TLP (otherwise somewhere else like Technology) the
standard makes perfect sense and either in Jigsaw modules, OSGi bundles
those JSRs may be used for Enterprise/server apps but also elsewhere, which
is why the JCP is currently the best place at least for some that see a
value in standardization. If I read Mike's response correctly, Eclipse
Foundation will "standardize" AKA define those APIs and specifications.
Eclipse, Apache or e.g. Cloud Native Alliance do that in a rapidly
increasing manner. Take Docker, Swagger->OpenAPI and other examples. Where
technologies that had been controlled and defined by only a single vendor
(Docker Inc, SmartBear or other companies) get opened up and shaped by
multiple vendors over time.

Regards,

Werner


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:48 AM, <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: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming
>       and Packaging (reza_rahman)
>    2. Re: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming
>       and Packaging (Mike Milinkovich)
>    3. Re: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming
>       and Packaging (Bill Shannon)
>    4. Re: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming
>       and Packaging (Heiko Rupp)
>    5. Re: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming
>       and Packaging (Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:14:41 -0500
> From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
>         on Java EE Naming and Packaging
> Message-ID: <mailman.29.1516175304.10174.ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> This new process is frankly another area where far more community feedback
> is needed and I believe is currently missing.
> If we indeed have to live with a rebranding, I believe what the majority
> of the community and industry would like to see is standardization via an
> existing body like ISO, ECMA or OASIS. That will carry much more weight
> with most of my customers than just the Eclipse Foundation as a replacement
> to the JCP. A majority of the actual work could still be done through the
> Eclipse Foundation.
> Have these possibilities been discussed by the EE4J stakeholders? If so,
> what decisions were made and why? More importantly, shouldn't such
> decisions be made with the help of very broad community feedback?
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> -------- Original message --------From: Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero <
> z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> Date: 1/16/18  3:59 PM  (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
> And that's great. A new process with the spirit of the JCP,? but without
> its lacks. I have no doubt this move will be beneficial for everybody.
> But I can't consider it a JCP replacement (in the sense of the home for
> Java standards) if it lacks former privileges. There's where my doubts lay.?
>
> El mar., 16 ene. 2018 21:51, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-
> foundation.org> escribi?:
> On 2018-01-16 3:39 PM, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero wrote:
>
> > If the JCP doesn't fit the needs of Java EE nomore, then go *replace* it.
>
>
>
> That is exactly what is happening here.
>
>
>
> The Eclipse Foundation is going to be creating a new specification
>
> process which will replace the role of the JCP as it currently pertains
>
> to Java EE. That new spec process will hopefully fix many of the issues
>
> with the JCP. I can guarantee that it will not have the existing "get
>
> all the IP" Spec Lead role. Similarly I can guarantee that it will not
>
> have any special votes or roles for Oracle or any other special company.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mike Milinkovich
>
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
>
> (m) +1.613.220.3223
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/
> 20180116/15339d07/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:04:45 -0500
> From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org>
> To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
>         on Java EE Naming and Packaging
> Message-ID:
>         <ae494776-e959-2b7f-c5a5-550c0f2952dd@eclipse-foundation.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 2018-01-16 3:59 PM, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero wrote:
> > And that's great. A new process with the spirit of the JCP,? but
> > without its lacks. I have no doubt this move will be beneficial for
> > everybody.
> >
> > But I can't consider it a JCP replacement (in the sense of the home
> > for Java standards) if it lacks former privileges. There's where my
> > doubts lay.
>
> There, at its heart is the dilemma. "I have no doubt this move will be
> beneficial for everybody....except I will doubt anything that changes."
> (If you will pardon the paraphrasing.)
>
> Sadly, we cannot have our cake and eat it too.
>
> I understand that it would be wonderful if we could construct a scenario
> where we had every single good thing about the status quo, coupled with
> the goodness that will come from being open and vendor-neutral.
> Unfortunately, that cannot happen for the reasons Will explained in the
> initial email in this thread. Switching from single vendor to
> multi-vendor does come with some unavoidable changes. Everyone involved
> in this is working very hard on ensuring backwards compatibility, and
> keeping changes to the bare minimum. But some changes cannot be avoided.
>
>
> >
> > El mar., 16 ene. 2018 21:51, Mike Milinkovich
> > <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
> > <mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org>> escribi?:
> >
> >     On 2018-01-16 3:39 PM, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero wrote:
> >     > If the JCP doesn't fit the needs of Java EE nomore, then go
> >     *replace* it.
> >
> >     That is exactly what is happening here.
> >
> >     The Eclipse Foundation is going to be creating a new specification
> >     process which will replace the role of the JCP as it currently
> >     pertains
> >     to Java EE. That new spec process will hopefully fix many of the
> >     issues
> >     with the JCP. I can guarantee that it will not have the existing "get
> >     all the IP" Spec Lead role. Similarly I can guarantee that it will
> not
> >     have any special votes or roles for Oracle or any other special
> >     company.
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/
> 20180116/8d53e271/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:57:13 -0800
> From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>,    John
>         Hogan <jhogan515@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
>         on Java EE Naming and Packaging
> Message-ID: <c69277ab-6e4e-8649-1483-96bac0df88bc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> John Hogan wrote on 01/16/18 10:35 AM:
> > I do have a concern relating to item 3 in what is being communicated by
> > Oracle.? If I'm understanding correctly, and future net new EE4J
> > APIs/technologies cannot be placed under javax, does this mean that
> Oracle
> > intends to develop their own new APIs under javax?? Will this result in
> two
> > flavors of Java EE, Oracle's and EE4J's?
> No, that is not Oracle's intent.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:30:38 +0100
> From: "Heiko Rupp" <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "EE4J community discussions" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
>         on Java EE Naming and Packaging
> Message-ID: <292E6401-FE97-4DA6-B841-A6CC75961C32@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 16 Jan 2018, at 21:39, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero wrote:
>
> > What we are discussing here is not a replacement but the abandonment
> > of the "Standard Enterprise API".
>
> Can you please explain what you mean?
> My understanding is that the existing APIs do not change,
> but fo new APIs under the umbrella, the (top level) package names
> will be different from what they were.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:48:11 +0000
> From: Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero      <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
>         on Java EE Naming and Packaging
> Message-ID:
>         <CAG1ZpUb7FqJ_w8G9-nSijELevsixW7Bs-VM1fL=iaxuZvN=
> U8Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
>
> Even if we come to the conclusion that can't use that packages for new
> specs, I miss a way to add functionality to the standard API. MicroProfile
> did it with Config and 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.
>
> El mi?., 17 ene. 2018 a las 8:30, Heiko Rupp (<hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx>)
> escribi?:
>
> > On 16 Jan 2018, at 21:39, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero wrote:
> >
> > > What we are discussing here is not a replacement but the abandonment
> > > of the "Standard Enterprise API".
> >
> > Can you please explain what you mean?
> > My understanding is that the existing APIs do not change,
> > but fo new APIs under the umbrella, the (top level) package names
> > will be different from what they were.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/
> 20180117/fc2a24d1/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 5, Issue 51
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20180117/54fe67f0/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 5, Issue 52
*********************************************

Back to the top