Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] process, platforms, profiles, etc.

[Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It's not clear that we can be a complete replacement for the JCP since we are not getting into Java SE/OpenJDK or Java ME specifications. I do view the specification process we are working on as more of a replacement of the JCP for enterprise Java related specifications.

There certainly is a question of the purpose of the Java Executive Committee with the removal of the Java EE specs, but that is a separate conversation in my mind.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2018-05-04 4:09 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:

...

I'm still trying to understand whether we're defining a process to replace the JCP, or whether we're defining a process that can and will only be used to define the Jakarta EE platform.  If the former, most of the discussion about profiles belongs elsewhere. And we would need to allow for the possibility that a new spec would be defined but not included in the Jakarta EE platform.  Think of the Portlet and related specs in the JCP; would we want to allow for another ecosystem of specs perhaps related to but not part of Jakarta EE?  Expanding the platform to include every spec ever defined means the platform will grow without bound, placing a significant burden on vendors that ship full platform implementations.  Making every new thing optional means they're not really part of the platform because applications can't depend on them.

I had never quite thought of it that way, but from the perspective of the Eclipse Foundation we are defining the former: a spec process to replace the JCP. The initial use case will be Jakarta, but we have already been approached by projects in other areas of Eclipse (e.g. IoT) who are interested in also having a formal spec process. So I believe that this definitely goes beyond Jakarta EE.