[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] : Re: Ratified Implementations and special designation in the eyes of users
|
Just getting caught
up this morning...I'm not thrilled
with the proposed updates to the PR. It's hidden and looks confusing.What happened
to Ed's idea of listing the compatible implementation used for the ballot
in the "main section" along with the Spec, API, TCK, along with
the current section of listing *all* compatible implementations, including
the one that was used for the ballot? Something like this...Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0 Jakarta JSON Processing defines a Java(R)
based framework for parsing, generating, transforming, and querying JSON
documents.Compatible
Implementations
---------------------------------------------------
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:
Ivar
Grimstad <ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To:
Jakarta
specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date:
02/11/2021
01:01Subject:
Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec] [External] : Re: Ratified Implementations and special
designation in the eyes of usersSent
by: "jakarta.ee-spec"
<jakarta.ee-spec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,I did an update to the PR to reflect
this. Take a look at it and see if it meets all requirements It is easier
when we can see how it would look like in the preview.https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/329IvarOn Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:49 AM Ed Bratt
<ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: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.-- EdOn 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.-David_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
-- Ivar
Grimstad
Jakarta
EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse
Foundation
Eclipse
Foundation- Community. Code. Collaboration. _______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec