[
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
|
Your response definitely helps in understanding that the options were at least vetted. I prefer others also chime in but I kind of suspect we need to discuss the standard body choice factor a bit more with the community. I am unsure whether this thread is the right place to do so right now.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 1/17/18 6:17 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
Hi Reza,
Thanks Mark for your response. I hope the other key players will respect the legitimate desires of the community enough to openly acknowledge it and at least say they tried on their behalf if not to preserve their own hard earned business interests and investments.
On the note of moving forward, did you notice my question with regards to standardizing via a recognized body as opposed to simply the Eclipse Foundation? I would love to understand your and Red Hat's view on such a possibility.
I didn’t notice that, so apologies for only addressing a portion of the thread.
When looking at where to move Java EE we (Oracle, IBM and Red Hat) did touch on the standards body option. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one, but I do recall raising the question about OASIS specifically because I know Oracle, IBM, Red Hat and others have worked together in OASIS many times over the years. However, there was universal agreement that whilst OASIS might be the right place for standards efforts such as WS-*, TOSCA and other things which might well be considered “protocol related”, it likely wasn’t the right place for Java and Java EE related activities which are much more developer focussed.
I also recall re-raising this with MikeM from Eclipse and others once we had announced the move to the Eclipse Foundation because clearly what we now have to do within Eclipse is create processes which look very much like those you’d find within an existing standards organisation, such as OASIS or W3C. There are pros and cons with this but ultimately the things which swayed me to say that we shouldn’t standardise within OASIS or elsewhere include the following:
- having the code in Eclipse and standards efforts elsewhere would mean individuals and corporations need to be members of multiple (at least two) bodies. Whilst that might not be too much of a hurdle for corporations, it’s not going to be easy for some individuals and would be a possible impediment to growing the community wide and deep.
- over the last 3 decades (ouch!) I’ve worked in pretty much all of the standards bodies around and whilst they have good processes for what they do, they’re not necessarily the right processes for what the community may need around EE4J. Furthermore, they don’t necessarily move quickly either. I believe we can come up with a bespoke process within Eclipse which feels more a natural part of the development effort than something which is adjunct to it.
Not sure if this helps you and others, but you asked :)
Mark.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
Date: 1/17/18 5:46 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming and Packaging
I’m fairly sure I’ve said this before on some lists and also at JavaOne 2017 when we discussed some of this in various meetings but I will repeat here: whilst I would definitely have preferred to keep the javax namespace for new specifications and to perhaps retain the Java EE name for the branding, I understand Oracle’s position. Related to that, I therefore know that no amount of energy expended on trying to change these two things will result in a different outcome. However, I think what Oracle have done to this point in moving Java EE to Eclipse is much more important than a brand name or a Java package name and collectively we should expend that energy in moving the code and community forward collaboratively. EE4J will not fail because it’s not branded Java EE. EE4J will not fail because new specifications cannot be done under the javax package. EE4J will fail if we spend too much time away from driving these specifications forward and adding new specifications to adapt to changes in the developer space.
Therefore, whilst I understand what the Guardians have requested, I feel that we are at a point where we should focus on the positive aspects of what Oracle have done and build on those. Together we move EE4J forward and together we can make it a success!
Mark.
Hello - Reza Rahman has recently posted a Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming and Packaging. Our feedback is given below - most of it is context explaining our direction. We hope it is helpful.Oracle has previously communicated that it intends to work with the EE4J community to:1) Define a branding strategy for the platform, including a new name for Java EE to be determined.2) Enable use of existing javax package names, and enable extension of existing javax namespaces (e.g. javax.servlet.*) to enable compatibility and evolution of existing APIs.
3) Use a different namespace naming convention, i.e. different from “javax.*”, for net new APIs/technologies.Note that doing the above remains work in process, but it remains our intent.The open letter requests that Oracle and other EE4J stakeholders work together:1) To allow the new platform to retain the Java EE name
2) To allow use of existing “javax” packages for existing technologies
3) To allow use of the “javax.enterprise” package for new technologies
Oracle has already expressed its intent to do what is requested in point #2 above. This would allow for compatibility between EE4J releases and existing Java EE releases at the package level. We will focus on points #1 and #3 below. Why not allow use of the Java EE name, and why not allow use of the javax.enterprise namespace for all new EE4J technologies? The industry has changed since the Java EE development process was originally created. The process was not seen as being nimble, flexible or open enough. Our shared goal is to create a more nimble process, with more flexible licensing, and more open governance that is not dependent on a single vendor. We believe this will encourage more participation and innovation. We see general support for this new direction from across the community.
This new direction implies many changes, starting with a change in the technology development process. The Java EE process, or to be more specific, the JCP process that was used for Java EE development, is a highly structured process that grants specification leads significant influence over how technologies are specified and implemented. The EE4J process will be different. It will be more open. Single vendors including Oracle will continue to contribute, but will no longer have the same level of influence over how new EE4J technologies evolve. We believe there is consensus that this is a positive step for the community.This new development process drives choices around use of the Java EE name, and use of the javax.* package names for new technologies. The Java EE and javax.* names leverage the Java trademark, and indicate that the source of these technologies is Oracle and community processes managed by Oracle. As a critical identifier of the source of products to our users, we must continue to reserve use of such names using the Java trademark to serving that fundamental source identifying function. This will help us to maintain the Java trademark, which is in Oracle’s interest and in the community’s interest. We recognize there are likely to be requirements to create new versions of existing Java EE specifications that were already created using the existing JCP process. We believe we can work out an approach to allow use of javax.* names for extensions to these existing specifications in order to accommodate these requirements. However, if we adopt a new process for new EE4J technologies, as is desired by the community, we believe we must require that a new namespace be used for the new EE4J technologies that are developed using that process, and a new brand (other than Java EE) that includes these new technologies. There is a tradeoff here, and we believe that the net benefit of the new process warrants the adoption of a new namespace for new EE4J technologies, and a new brand. We will work with the EE4J community to mitigate continuity concerns that accompany this change. We are making it very clear that EE4J will be an evolution of existing Java EE 8 technologies: • We are contributing our existing GlassFish Java EE 8 Reference Implementation sources to EE4J. • We will contribute our existing TCKs.• We are intending to allow certain uses of existing javax packages as those packages evolve for compatibility.• We are intending to allow use of existing specification names for component specifications. • We are building an initial EE4J implementation that is intended to be both Java EE 8 and “EE4J” compatible. • We will work with the EE4J community to promote the new brand. These are positive steps we can take. We support the efforts of the EE4J Project Management Committee to make branding recommendations to the Eclipse Foundation. We encourage the community to support the effort as well, and extend thanks to all for the continued interest in Java EE and EE4J technologies. And we hope to deliver soon more new projects with GlassFish sources contributed to EE4J! ThanksWill_______________________________________________ee4j-community mailing listee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
---
Mark Little
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@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
---
Mark Little
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)
