I agree.
Many of you have been thinking about this problem since the JCP was first created. Do you have a proposal you can share?
+ 1 to this and Mark's comments on another branch of this discussion:
Mark Little wrote on 01/06/2018 07:47:28:
> IP flow is very important. However, if we come up with a process that
> is driven solely by that aim and the end result is something that
> prevents code-first development and rapid iteration then I think we
> need to go back to the drawing board. Or put another way, let's make
> it clear that IP flow is only as important as code-first development.
>
> Mark.
Regards,
Ian
Ian Robinson, IBM Distinguished Engineer
WebSphere Foundation Chief Architect
IBM Hursley, UK
irobins@xxxxxxxxxx
Admin Assistant: Janet Brooks -
jsbrooks12@xxxxxxxxxx
From: "Kevin Sutter"
<sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 31/05/2018 23:59
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Interaction Between Code-First and Specifications
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
At the risk of having to own this picture... :-) I have attempted to capture Ivar's description in a Google Drawing. It's kind of cryptic, but if it helps with our discussion tomorrow, great.
If not, it didn't take up too many cycles... I also took a few liberties to fill in a couple of holes in the description, but I know there are many more to fill...
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1TvP378n0SH35CLOVxsuump8vJ3ErMt0QamXGgO67TwE/edit?usp=sharing
(I currently have this on my own Google drive. If this is useful, it could be moved to the Jakarta EE drive for a wider editing audience. Right now, I just have provided the link allowing comments.)
---------------------------------------------------
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: "Kevin Sutter"
<sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05/30/2018 05:14 PM
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Interaction Between Code-First and Specifications
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> For the record, I think Ivar's email is so spot-on we might want to add it to the document as a use case to help elaborate on the requirements.
+1, with a couple of clarifications per my earlier email...
According to Ivar's description, this neat new feature was first developed by CXF. Then, the JAX-RS API project picked up the idea and solidified the API in the next release of JAX-RS 3.0? And, then the API is proposed to the Spec committee? That seems to
be going just a bit too fast. What happens if the Spec committee declines the proposal (for whatever reason)? Now, we have JAX-RS 3.0 with an API that is not a standard. And, all of the previous incarnations of the JAX-RS API were standards (due to Java
EE process). JAX-RS is now no longer a standard.
Instead, I think the JAX-RS API team needs to propose updates to the APIs to the Spec committee *before* releasing new versions of their API. If we want to experiment with the JAX-RS APIs, then that's where projects like MicroProfile come into play. We could
use the MicroProfile RestClient component as an example. The RestClient is a type-safe alternative to the JAX-RS client interfaces. MicroProfile has produced a version or two of this API. The JAX-RS team is currently evaluating this RestClient as a possible
feature for the next rev of JAX-RS API. But, again, we should push these type of API updates through the "much more efficient spec process" at Jakarta EE to ensure that the JAX-RS API stays consistent.
The other thing we need to ensure is that we at least offer to keep the principals involved through out this process. Whatever CXF or MicroProfile created, it's bound to change slightly as it goes through the spec process. These groups (individuals) should
continue to be involved to ensure that the intent of the original feature is not lost. Being an open community, this should not be an issue. But, it's something that we should emphasize. We don't want it to seem like the APIs are thrown over the wall to
the Spec process and out comes something that possibly doesn't resemble the original feature.
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------
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: Mike Milinkovich
<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05/30/2018 04:59 PM
Subject: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Interaction Between Code-First and Specifications
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
All,
I have decided it is time for a new thread, as I am starting to get lost in "Recent Edits".
Recently Bill Shannon, Ivar Grimstad, Steve Millidge and Scott Stark had some comments on the interaction between the code first approach and the specification process requirements. For the record, I think Ivar's email is so
spot-on we might want to add it to the document as a use case to help elaborate on the requirements.
Bill Shannon:
-
... we were previously expecting that a specification project would manage the specification document, the source code for the API classes, and the source code for the TCK. Assuming we need special rules for specification projects,
do we really want those special rules to apply to the API and TCK, which after all are just source code projects?
-
... The API classes are hard because they mix specification with (varying amounts of) implementation. But none of the IP issues for the spec apply to the TCK, right? Maybe the TCKs should be in separate code projects that follow
the normal EDP rules?
-
Proposed Resolution:
-
The definition of a Specification Project should be refined to recognize that the Specification Document and the TCK will be done in separate Eclipse project managed under the same PMC.
-
Now that there is no single Reference Implementation, we need to fix that in the definition as well.
Steve Millidge:
-
I think is the root of my confusion the specification process discussions seem to be pushing back towards the spec first approach with Expert Groups etc.
-
Proposed Resolution: If you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the wording, please suggest or comment on the document. Personally, I don't think that the spec process is
pushing back on code first at all. At some point you still have to take IP from the code and turn it into a Specification, and that's what we're working on. But I fully admit that I'm perhaps too close to the wording, and will happily take suggestions to make
that clearer.
Scott Stark:
-
...this looks to be in conflict with the requirement that one be able to create a clean room implementation from the spec document due to the references to the JavaDoc produced from the external API code.
-
Proposed Resolution: I am not seeing this. Ivar makes it clear that you end up with a formal specification document and that other implementations would be expected to move to reflect
those updates.
HTH
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
