Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] [External] : Re: Ratified Implementations and special designation in the eyes of users

First, we /are/ investing in decoupling from GlassFish. For example, the TCK is just about free of the build-time requirement that was identified as an issue. I would expect that to be completed in time for use during the 9.1 release.

Listing the compatible implementations included for each ballot might suffice.

From my perspective -- we want to provide perks for implementations are willing and able to get on, and stay on these trains. They enable us to move the Spec. forward on the community schedule. It is a lot of work, on speculation and on a schedule that might not be of their choosing.

-- Ed

On 2/10/2021 7:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 10, 2021, at 6:32 PM, Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Under the first heading (the Spec. name and version) on the specification page add all implementations that are included as part of the ratification.

On that suggestion, do you think mentioning them explicitly in the Release Review section would be sufficient?

Putting them at the very top of the page above all the Compatible Implementations to me is less optimal than the original star proposal.


Back to the top