Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[] Jakarta RPC Creation Review Comments...

I was just reviewing the material for this new Jakarta RPC spec project proposaland I see that the Creation Review processhas been initiated, with conclusion by Nov 24.  We have several comments that I would like to ensure that our wider Spec Committee can participate on.  (Providing comments on the proposal itself or the creation review record seem to get "lost" and most people do not see them.)

First off, the overall content and direction of the Jakarta RPC project proposal seems sound.  Creating a Specification based on the gRPC programming model is a good step forward.  But, ...
  • The name of the project is confusing.  I'm afraid it would be very easy to confuse Jakarta RPC with JAX RPC, and it's my understanding that this Spec is not a reincarnation of JAX RPC.  From the associated issue, it seems that Jakarta gRPC is also not acceptable since "gRPC" is already trademarked.  Since gRPC is based on "protocol buffers", maybe we should be more verbose and call it "Jakarta Protocol Buffering RPC" or "Jakarta pRPC", for short.  Just an  idea.  But, I think we need to do something other than "Jakarta RPC".
  • The initial set of committers is too single vendor heavy.  When we first created all of the Jakarta Specification Projects, we enlisted two reps from each strategic member plus other interested parties for the initial set of committers.  This helps diversify the community and provides some balance to the direction of the project.  I'd like to see us go back to those roots and encourage/enlist participation by other strategic members and limit the number of initial committers from any one organization.  To that end, IBM would like to put forth two names to participate on this spec project -- Bill Lucy and Paul Niccoluci.  (FYI, Bill would even be interested in co-leading the project, if Aleksander is looking for any assistance.)
  • Once a diverse set of initial committers is identified, then the selection of the patent license could be determined.  I know that Oracle took the initiative to create this project proposal (thank you!) and they would prefer the CPL license, but once we get more participation from the wider pool, would CPL still be the desired patent license?  With all of the initial participants coming from one organization, I think it sways the selection of the patent license.  As was done with the Config spec project, having an informal vote from the eventual diverse membership would produce a better view of the desired patent license.


Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)

Back to the top