Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] UpdatingCompatibleImplementationbrands

Hi Werner,

 

Just realised I’m replying to the spec committee list (and I’m not in the committee 😊 ). I’m happy to put together a list from the EE4J project perspective for you. I can see if I can create one on the google drive.

 

Steve

 

From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Werner Keil
Sent: 04 February 2021 14:53
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] UpdatingCompatibleImplementationbrands

 

Hi Steve,

 

This is what Kevin replied on this thread in another Reply yesterday:

 

>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!

I would be happy to contribute to such a list of imlementations, but not sure if I have the permissions to create it upfront, so if either Kevin you or someone else can, please do.

 

Werner

 

Von: Steve Millidge (Payara)
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2021 14:50
An: Jakarta specification committee
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] UpdatingCompatibleImplementationbrands

 

Hi Werner,

 

Sorry I’m confused ownership of what?

 

Steve

 

From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Werner Keil
Sent: 04 February 2021 13:24
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Updating CompatibleImplementationbrands

 

Please look at Kevin’s remarks yesterday, they should all be consistent, at least those where it does not say Glassfish or a dedicated Project name like Yasson or Soteria.

Steve, would you like to take ownerwhip or start with the list of implementation titles and brandnames? 😉

 

 

 

Von: Steve Millidge (Payara)
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2021 11:05
An: Jakarta specification committee
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Updating CompatibleImplementationbrands

 

I can change the concurrency RI project name if needed if someone tells me what to do 😊

 

From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Werner Keil
Sent: 03 February 2021 10:47
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Updating Compatible Implementationbrands

 

I would not use "Eclipse JSON Processing 2.0.0." in one case while e.g. Jakarta Concurrency uses "Jakarta Concurrency CI 2.0.0.", see https://jakarta.ee/specifications/concurrency/2.0/, just add a "CI" there, too ;-)

 

Werner

 

Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2021 10:20
An: Jakarta specification committee
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Updating Compatible Implementationbrands

 

Yes, I agree.

There needs to be a clear difference in the naming. 

 

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:01 AM David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

 

 

 

Back to the top