Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-pmc] [External] : Re: Request assistance for Jakarta Contexts and Dependency Injection
  • From: Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 13:32:14 -0700
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=AuRe03pAl55Hc+ay+neu35gLOOtWQYZOxRUpqlDIFdg=; b=GnUgH5NRhtU50cXx9sKR59vKJTNaK8e1MHjA5S5AHRrzPr10SJhv8jSj27USYNNBc2A3AgxSXr4Xo6YbsorQjaQILDQIJ1aUlZ9f5M6jCzRjBRIkvQ1tqByZifM0TeCFkpOTJAPK2wkYAFkjN7nbxyEaeX58aoWvC7zuehyprG/K2V5iO6mhxlP4HLqdUf+kt7H555UBKIZ05clECeiroY8ze3ZhaFgJ5KNj+t6Wn7TfGzZkp6g2/8FAtGFDHzree0M5TUAFxqdI/BLrAMGBl3U8u5eHpmdWYYtWR/HkcYK8NnnGFko6niJewejYm4TjYTy2gyoj7u+W7zgHOfAshQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=EaJ3VHI9aHimjNUActbPj37mgfBwo7CipcX1xnNtzAkRPDJF/IX7RMIdLpSu69JJNelTtp9QTnW03A/KWiR33L2UZf2wuBUepkWSCmc4XWeTiR4fxnrV/ly73Imx8oKTfsJpzF1uT8tHhomDXhGDCINYj7Dv/P7oxC2rLyVKtl/sZiCENfQsng/taAK400G5eWw4r8BnX+3hSCtrRsixUXmkD+WdcaVRvutryunao5VKWrSw4eydM0Vd9+Yoez2TXGKXpmMitR43NTnV7WGuGE2c3Uwh9EovHBzT/WED8Eb+RBkD1xMYxKzwY3VGfpqrusDPAvMZirVFoZ2zQDZOWg==
  • Delivered-to: ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0

My concern is, now there will be two specifications, two ballots where before there was one. Where will we have defined the scope the distinguishes one specification from the other. I would recommend this be formalized with a restructuring review. Otherwise the scope now must cover whatever happens to either specification -- in that case, where is that scope documented? How would someone, in 5 years trace this back.

-- Ed

On 9/8/2023 12:31 AM, Ivar Grimstad via ee4j-pmc wrote:

I don't think a restructuring review is needed as long as the scope of the project is the same. The granularity of the released artifacts doesn't affect this scope, so you should be good to go with your planned releases.


On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:37 PM Scott Stark via ee4j-pmc <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It was suggested that the current split of the CDI specification into a core part and an integration part should entail a restructuring review like was done for security:

What is happening in CDI does not really meet the definition of a restructuring review in the EFSP:

and I don't see a restructuring review as one of the types under the create new release option. Are we fine to just create a CDI EE 4.1 release and update the CDI 4.1 release to reference that the integration chapters are being moved into the CDI EE 4.1 release?


ee4j-pmc mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit


Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration. 

ee4j-pmc mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KawPfWKywOR19PfuRxz-2lrQjokJ7FeDZufo7g7fnMrA6qv5gSKiu_uXnJav0hoAV_NhwQE3_Wt24CppiQ$ 

Back to the top