[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Discuss proposed Resolution for eliminating Optional aspects of Specifications
|
> On Jun 17, 2021, at 1:50 AM, Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> A developer could easily use an optional portion of a specification inadvertently and then find they can't run their application on a different compatible implementation. As application portability across multiple compatible implementations is a key selling point of Jakarta EE Profiles I think anything we do to improve that is a good thing.
As far as I've understood the proposed measures wouldn't affect what servers can ship.
> I think the JMS issue described could be resolved through use of Profiles, JMS-lite as Scott says, within the JMS specification project or formally as a second spec within the remit of the JMS project overall. Personally though I wouldn't carve out a profile of a spec on the hope that some implementation will then certify unless that implementation team is involved in the process.
I share the same hesitation and think that's a very good call out. It sounds like this will bring Microsoft resources to the specification. If that doesn't happen and we're at the finish line without a new implementation, we should probably hold it for next release which can be done the second an implementation does show up.
> IMHO Java EE has done that in the past and left many inconsistencies in the overall platform as a result. There's a huge balancing act between shipping standalone lowest common denominator specifications and building a consistent platform that is functionally rich and delivers application portability.
Definitely a tricky balancing act.
Where I see us making our own potential wrong turn is allowing these optional features to be shipped and used, just no longer in the spec and TCK. That said, looking at EJB, for example, over 50% of the TCK tests are optional so I definitely do see problems that need to be fixed and completely understand why we're having this conversation -- it is a good one.
We'll probably need a mix of solutions.
-David
