Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-pmc] Renaming
I am also a member of the PMC.  I agree that the interests of the implementations (ie. Glassfish) need to be kept separate from the specifications (ie. Jakarta EE).  But, my belief is that this can be done with a single PMC.  As has been explained by Dmitry and others, there were some required changes across the board to make Eclipse Glassfish Java EE 8 compatible.  But, going forward, Eclipse Glassfish should be treated like any other compatible implementation.  And, as long as the EE4J PMC stays out of the business of performing Eclipse Glassfish project management, then we should be fine with a single PMC.


---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
 
 
----- Original message -----
From: "Kazumura, Kenji" <kzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: EE4J PMC Discussions <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] Renaming
Date: Sun, Apr 7, 2019 6:05 PM
 
+1
 
- Kenji Kazumura


 
日付: 2019/04/07 9:55、Dmitry Kornilov <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx> さんからのメッセージ:

+1

 

-- Dmitry

 

On 06.04.2019 23:12, Steve Millidge (Payara) wrote:

I am on the PMC and I disagree with splitting the PMC. To me it is a load of busy work which adds no value.

 

Steve

 
From: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Christian Kaltepoth <christian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 06 April 2019 4:38 PM
To: EE4J PMC Discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] Renaming
 
I fully agree with everything Markus and David wrote. And if I understood Ivar correctly, even the PMC agrees that splitting EE4J into a Jakarta EE and an implementation part is a good idea. The only disagreement seems to be about when to do it. Am I correct?
 
Could anyone please clarify which steps would be required for such a split. And whether or not it is a huge effort that would delay further progress? According to David's mail the PMC members are actually overworked, so splitting sooner could potentially fix this problem.
 
Am Sa., 6. Apr. 2019 um 10:12 Uhr schrieb Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
+1

-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David Blevins
Sent: Samstag, 6. April 2019 00:33
To: EE4J PMC Discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] Renaming

> On Apr 5, 2019, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 5, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I'm very much +1 for splitting up into Jakarta EE (= only APIs, TCKs,
Specs) and EE4J (= only products like Jersey) to clearly tell third party
vendors that Jakarta is open for them and there is no preference for Eclipse
products. Whether there is time for that or not. It is simply inauthentic
for market competitors that e. g. Jersey will not be preferred as long as it
stays under the same PMC than JAX-RS, and the long artificial delay we had
with JAX-RS due to particularly Jersey requests in the recent GlassFish
release proofs that I am right. Standards MUST be independent or they are
not really norms but just default choices!
>
> I was one of the minority PMC members who felt splitting sooner rather
than later was better.
>
> I see the coming Jakarta EE and GlassFish releases not as a reason to
delay, but as a reason we should do it now.  A couple motivators in my eyes:
>
> - Major releases are opportunities to exercise PMC health.  We'll lose the
opportunity to exercise the two future PMCs if we wait and another
opportunity won't come for quite a while.
>
> - The people in the EE4J PMC are overworked and have too many
responsibilities.  I think GlassFish is under served and deserves more
dedicated people who have vested interest in it.
>
> - We could potentially double the hands who can help.  I see it as time
spent to go faster.
>
> The middle reason is the primary reason people do not want to do it now.
I personally would rather see it done right and would be ok with potential
delays.  I think, however, eliminating the bottleneck could just as likely
improve our speed and get us to releases faster.

Using more universal language, I see splitting after the release a bit like
writing the tests after you go to production.

-David

_______________________________________________
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
 
 
--
 
 
_______________________________________________
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
 

Back to the top