Thanks for summarizing the steps and committees for those who are not in them or following them closely.
That's exactly why these decisions would allow "forking" or migrating an old JSR even those dormant or otherwise inactive into Jakarta EE similar to what was done with all the Java EE 8 specs.
Oracle and Ivar know best that for a future EE platform this also affects MVC which is currently a final JSR, and possibly others like Portlets if these technologies are still relevant enough to move them into Jakarta EE.
These committees will have to make similar decisions e.g. about accepting external specs or APIs under a different namespace than "jakarta".
And it's not just about MP here because other communities like IoT already start using the EFSP and we could well have a situation where Jakarta Messaging would like to consume something related to MQTT that's developed under "org.eclipse" and applies the EFSP.
The specific language was proposed in the Spec. committee.
There were a few other changes in this JESP update as well.
The Jakarta EE Spec. Committee adopted the Jakarta EE
Specification Process v 1.2. This was done by public ballot
taken over two weeks and was closed July 15, 2019. Here
is notification of the results.
The JESP document itself lives at GitHub, here
and you can look at PRs
if you want to see the evolution.
I believe, the Spec. committee is responsible for this text.
Steering committee has oversight authority.
There was lots of activity at this time as we were preparing
everything for the Jakarta EE 8 release in Sept.
-- Ed
On 4/6/2020 7:50 AM, Werner Keil wrote:
I don't recall that the namespace question was
answered explicitly by a vote either by mail or in a call (if
so, please point us to the archive;-)
Now that every relevant Jakarta EE 9 spec was renamed to
"jakarta" and there's a clean slate, we must ask if we are
willing to "pollute" that by adding new packages and modules
(it's not just the Java package name, there are plenty of
other elements like schema etc.) in future versions that are
not "jakarta" but something else, at least anything under
"org.eclipse" I would guess.
Werner
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:47 PM
Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again,
I don't see why this is a surprise. We have multiple products
with different users. We have different hat to wear in the
context of
the MP and Jakarta communities.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:38 AM reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The surprise is twofold from my perspective.
>
> The biggest one is the apparent suggestions that more
buy-in needs to be done on the MicroProfile side. It seems
whatever could have been tried there has already been done and
now we need to focus mostly on what is right for Jakarta EE?
The second is that there was apparently already some
conversation that took part on the MicroProfile side as to
what would happen on the Jakarta EE side once the pull vote
was made that is apparently being now completely disregarded?
>
> When do we stop rehashing in seemingly unending circles
and move forward on the decision making on the Jakarta side
and take whatever decisions were made on the MicroProfile side
as a fixed given?
>
> Reza Rahman
> Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
>
> Please note views expressed here are my own as an
individual community member and do not reflect the views of my
employer.
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE
smartphone
>