| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Modules [Was Re: Requirements Document] |
I'm just trying to keep the two issues separate so we can make more progress on the important issue for this group, which is to define a process to replace the JCP.
If you think the spec process needs to say something about modules, we could talk about that.
Or if you think the spec process needs to say something about how specs express requirements of any kind, then we should talk about that.
For example, we could consider whether the spec process document would follow RFC 2119, and whether it would require all specs approved through the process to follow RFC 2119.
Or we could talk about whether specs created through the
process would be permitted to allow implementations to claim 98% compatibility
with the spec, or whether they must treat compatibility as binary.
How much should the spec process dictate about how specs are written,
what they're permitted to allow, what requirements they must have, etc.?
These would be good things to discuss in this group right now, and maybe
that's what you intended.
Whether Jakarta EE should require support for modules is a discussion we
should leave until later, and probably a different group.
Kevin Sutter wrote on 05/10/2018 11:55 AM:
> 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.
Sure, Bill. But, the requirement for JPMS modules was originally
listed in Mike's spec requirements document. So, that started the
discussion. We don't have to finish it right now, but we do need
to get to a common understanding of what type of wording will be in the
spec requirements.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx
Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From: Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 05/10/2018
01:25 PM
Subject: Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Modules [Was Re: Requirements Document]
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
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]
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?
_______________________________________________
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
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