Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for approval: Jakarta EE Specification Committee Meeting Minutes November 4th, 2020

The minutes for the November 4th Specification Committee call are below and are also available here. Please review and be ready for approval during our call on November 11th. 

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - November 4th, 2020

Attendees (present in bold):


Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu

Dan Bandera - IBM - Kevin Sutter, Tom Watson (guest)

Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov, Lukas Jungmann

Andrew Pielage - Payara - Matt Gill

Scott Stark - Red Hat - Mark Little, Scott Marlow, Tom Jenkinson

David Blevins - Tomitribe - Jean-Louis Monteiro, Cesar Hernandez

Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative

Marcelo Ancelmo - Participant Member - Martijn Verburg

Werner Keil - Committer Member

Scott (Congquan) Wang - Primeton - Enterprise Member 


Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic, Paul Buck

Reference: EFSP, JESP


Past business / action items:

  • Approval is requested for the meeting minutes from the October 28th meeting as drafted - Approved.


Agenda:

See the Notes and Status column (G) in the spreadsheet for updates on the specifications discussed on the call.

See PR for comment.

  • Ad hoc discussion: Spec Committee goals and objectives for 2021

    • Next release: Limit what goes into the 9.1 release to manage release date

      • JDK level (11) ← required for the release, top priority

      • Modularity

      • New specs/features? Include those that are “ready” to go. Time box the release.

      • Need to declare what the release train looks like beyond 9.1 so everyone does not want to cram everything into the release? 9.2, ...

        • Timeline for 9.1

        • When to jump to 10.0? When there is enough new functionality

    • What will limit our success in 2021? [All]

      • High priority items:

        • Our TCK is too difficult for adding new features

        • Release process is too long/complicated (also see agenda item below from the Steering Committee)

        • No full-time (dedicated?) resources on the spec projects

      • Lower priority items:

        • Skill for writing technical specification documents to improve quality and consistency

        • Mechanism to include MicroProfile specs in Jakarta releases and/or collaborate

        • Number of compatible implementations: 1 or more than 1. Having only 1 can be a blocker

        • Revise the rule for when optional specification features are required? 

          • Rule today is at least one implementation has to implement all optional features (Glassfish is currently the only one)

          • Dan proposed that if no implementation plans to implement and then implements an optional feature, then that optional feature could be removed/pulled from the proposed specification as a remedy. Another rule change could be that the union of all compatible implementations for a given specification release implements all optional features.  This would demonstrate that all optional features are implementable (which is the intent of the current rule) while eliminating the burden of mandating one implementation provide all the proof of implementability for all optional features.

          • More work on this item required to get to a complete proposal on how to handle optional features.

        • Documentation and tutorials are out of date

Item below was not discussed. It will be included on the agenda for the call scheduled for November 11th

  • Request from the Steering Committee’s meeting on November 4th:

    • Simplify release process - Google doc to capture ideas is here  


Back to the top