Again, I'm not on the spec committee but because this is a straw poll thread, I feel authorized to engage.
I think we should carefully consider the consequences of adopting option 1. If we want to allow more technologies to take advantage of what we've built with Jakarta so they can grow their own usage, and Jakarta's, we want to be more flexible, not less. This
argues for a middle road where we make it clear that there are benefits to using the Jakarta Java package: (brand cohesion, less developer confusion) but we don't insist on it.
It seems a horribly missed opportunity to scuttle the whole idea of MicroProfile coming to Jakarta EE over just the namespace issue. LLMs don't care what namespace you use, we probably shouldn't care either.
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of werner.keil--- via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 at 11:36
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: werner.keil@xxxxxxx <werner.keil@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [Straw poll] namespace policy for existing specifications moving to the Jakarta specification project
My preference is option 1, but if David's option 4 was still viable that could work as a compromise.
Werner
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Blevins via jakarta.ee-spec.committee
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 9:03 PM
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [Straw poll] namespace policy for existing specifications moving to the Jakarta specification project
I think we need to be pragmatic and acknowledge that option 2 can only happen if the Eclipse Foundation either has the trademark for the namespace or is granted full rights to the trademark of the
namespace. For example if Spring folks wanted to donate a spec, the legal on that would be very costly as they'd want to retain control of general use of trademark while needing carve out what use they'd allow from a spec with their name.
We have no issue in that regards with MicroProfile, so we're good there. I'd really be more comfortable with a to-the-point vote on allowing org.eclipse.microprofile vs a generic policy that goes
about it in a round-about way that creates additional problems.
Namespaces are trademarks and we really need to think like lawyers when drafting any sort of "bring your own trademark" rule.
Again, MicroProfile's namespace is ok from a trademark perspective, but that's more an exception and not the typical rule.
My vote would be:
- option 4: We prefer jakarta namespaces and evaluate exceptions on a case-by-case basis
David
On Jul 10, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Thomas Watson via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As discussed at the July 9th meeting, we decided to do a straw poll to determine the specification committee group's opinion on package namespaces used by specifications wanting to move to the Jakarta specification project.
Please respond to this straw poll by July 23, 2025 so we can discuss results at the next specification committee meeting.
For existing specification projects that wish to move to the Jakarta specification project select one of the following options:
option 1: Force the existing specification projects to move all of their API package namespaces to jakarta when they move to the Jakarta specification project
option 2: Allow existing specification projects to retain their own existing package namespaces when they move to the Jakarta specification project
option 3: no preference
Tom Watson
_______________________________________________
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
