Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Modules [Was Re: Requirements Document]

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Almost. 
I would not want to see applications
or implementations of the Jakarta EE platform technologies to be required
to run as JPMS modules (including CTS itself). The degree to which
future editions of JakartaEE will need to be JPMS-enabled is a topic for
discussion but so long as there is no requirement for JPMS as part of compliance
I think we'll be fine. 

Regards,
Ian

Ian Robinson, IBM Distinguished
Engineer
WebSphere Foundation Chief Architect
IBM Hursley, UK
irobins@xxxxxxxxxx
Admin Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@xxxxxxxxxx



From:      
 Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:      
 jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:      
 10/05/2018 14:26
Subject:    
   Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
Modules [Was Re: Requirements Document]

---

On 2018-05-10 5:35 AM, Ian Robinson wrote:
The first LTS release of Java SE that
will contain modules is Java 11 so future versions of Jakarta EE (after
EE8) will need to have an opinion on Modules and some specificity around
module definitions for Jakarta EE technologies. Beyond that I would expect
the use of JPMS for Jakarta EE technologies to be well defined but optional.
Obviously that will be a decision for the community but I would not expect
JPMS to be a requirement enforced by future Jakarta EE TCKs.

Ian, I think what you're saying is that a future version of Jakarta EE will need to JPMS-enabled, but not require that applications built upon it use JPMS. Do I understand that correctly?

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU