Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] : Updating CompatibleImplementation bran

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That is in the exact
same position, Werner.  Thanks for catching this.  The JSONP
example was fresh in our heads due to the CRs created for the new Compatible
Implementation.  Would you care to do an inventory of our compatible
implementations and create Issues and/or PRs for correcting these?  Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:
       Werner
Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       02/03/2021
06:21
Subject:
       Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Updating CompatibleImplementation
brands
Sent
by:        "jakarta.ee-spec.committee"
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

But why different from Jakarta Concurrency or do you say that should probably also better change to "Eclipse Concurrency" in the next release?

 

Werner

 

Gesendet von Mailfür Windows 10

 

Von: Dmitry Kornilov
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2021 13:06
An: Jakarta specification committee
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Updating CompatibleImplementation brands

 

I agree. I'll change it to "Eclipse JSON Processing".

 

-- Dmitry

From:jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 03 February 2021 00:00
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [External] : [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Updating Compatible Implementation brands

 

Moving this to a separate thread so we don't overlook it.

> Unrelated comment, I noticed the compatible implementation listed for JSON P is wrong.  It says the compatible implementations name is "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0."  That's not appropriate.  For 1.2 we used "Eclipse JSON Processing 1.1.5"
>
>  - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/1.1/
>  - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/2.0/
>
> This is part of the Advance Implementation Neutrality topic in our 2021 plan.  Thihup's implementation cannot be perceived as competing against "the official" Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0 implementation also called "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0."
>
> No implementation should be allowed to use the spec branding like that, even if it is in at Eclipse, a former RI, or happens to be in the same repo as the spec.  The fact that the Eclipse implementation is in the same repo is something that needs to be fixed.  Until we fix it, we still need to use neutral branding like "Eclipse JSON Processing" or "Eclipse Mail."

Thoughts?


-David

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee

 _______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee