Skip to main content
[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 01:01
Subject:        Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [External] : Re: Ratified Implementations and special designation in the eyes of users
Sent 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/329

Ivar

On 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.
-- 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.


-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


Back to the top