An ecosystem of vendor implementations of Jakarta EE 9 with no
support at all for JPMS modules seems like failure to me. If it's
not a requirement, that seems like a likely outcome.
I agree with not requiring applications to use modules.
I agree with not requiring application servers to be built out of
modules.
I don't agree with application servers not being required to
support applications that want to use modules. Obviously this
would be a significant addition to the spec, but it's one that I
think the community will expect.
And I especially don't agree that a Jakarta EE Micro Profile
implementation should not be required to be delivered as modules.
But back to my meta-point...
Shouldn't this be a discussion we have in the Jakarta EE
"platform expert group"? This seems to have nothing to do with
creating a specification process to replace the JCP.
Ian Robinson wrote on 05/10/2018 08:09
AM:
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
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
