|
As much as I really dislike it and believe still do many people
in the community, I think we should accept that we needed to give
up on the naming struggle. The really big thing that I hope will
be sorted out properly is backward compatibility with "javax",
including being able to enhance the existing APIs without getting
into an entanglement with Oracle's small army of lawyers with not
much useful to do.
Aside from this, I would really like things to move forward. The
longer this drags on, the harder it is going to be to make Jakarta
EE relevant, even to Java EE developers.
On 4/4/2019 12:46 PM, Markus KARG
wrote:
This
sounds like the negotiations to still use the name "Java
Message Service" has definitively failed?
So
in future we will not define singleton standards for the
complete Java universe anymore, but solely a standard for
those that want to use Eclipse Jakarta?
This
is exactly what the Java EE Guardians wanted to prevent. We
could have simply forked Java EE years ago then, without any
waiting for Oracle at all.
My
hope when entering the Jakarta project was that Oracle
allows us to further developed the set of official Java
standards, under the original names.
-Markus
I think what we need is a scope statement
for the project. The current suggestion is that when the
transition to Jakarta EE Specification projects is done, the
project name and the specification name will be equal. For
example:
- The project "Eclipse Project for
JMS" will be named "Jakarta Message Service"
- The specification "Java Message
Service 2.0" will be named "Jakarta Message Service"
I am not sure if this ambiguity will
cause some confusion or clarification...
The scope of the specification
project is suggested to be the specification Document,
API and TCK.
There are some discussions going on
whether the TCK should be within the scope of the
specification project or not. Conceptually, and
practically, it should be within the scope of the
project, but not under the same license. Not sure if
that is possible...
If the TCK should be in its own
project, it does not make sense to include it in the
scope of a specification project.
All
that says is: "Eclipse Proeject for JMS
provides the API and TCK for Java™ Message
Service (JMS) API, starting from the
specification defined by JSR-343."
> This is
actually a bad example that needs to be
changed. It makes no attempt to actually
define the scope of JMS. It's basically
self-referential.
Actually
it is not self-referential. The
project "Eclipse Project for JMS"
is a different thing than "Java
Message Service API" itself. One
is a group of committers, the
other is a technology they work
on. The cause of this
"self-referenceis that "somebody"
decided that all projects for Java
EE technology are named "Eclipse
Project for X". It would be more
clear if the sentence would read
like "Eclipse Hermes provides the
API and TCK for JMS, the official
standard for MOM drivers on the
Java platform.".
So
what do you actually want to have,
a description of the project or a
description of the technology?
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
|
