And based on earlier
discussions, shouldn’t it be more an „Eclipse Specification
Process“ (which may have some Special cases for „Jakarta EE“
or what the JCP used to call a „Platform“) that is suitable
for MicroProfile, Science, IoT, OS.bea or any other part of
the Eclipse ecosystem that has to deal with specification
and standardization?
So MicroProfile could be one good example
for a possible further user, but it should not be considered
the only one.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Mike Milinkovich wrote on 12/18/18 7:53 AM:
> However, I don't know if Bill's stated
intent of having MicroProfile join
> Jakarta EE is a good topic to be
discussing as yet. I would rather focus
> everyone's attention and energy on
getting the JCP specs into Jakarta EE and
> enabling their evolution. We cannot
claim to have a functioning Jakarta EE
> process for MicroProfile to join until
we've accomplished that.
>
We can certainly defer that discussion
until later, but if we don't have that as
a goal when we're defining the Jakarta EE
specification process, it's unlikely
that we'll end up with something that
MicroProfile will be willing to join. We
don't need to evolve JCP specs in order to
have a process that can be used to
define MicroProfile specs. Getting the JCP
specs into Jakarta EE is largely a
legal issue. Creating a process suitable
for MicroProfile is largely a process
design issue. This group can't solve the
legal issue, but it can solve the
process design issue.
What other process design issues do you
think we need to address before
considering whether the process we're
designing is suitable for MicroProfile?
_______________________________________________
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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
