| Re: [jakarta.ee-wg] Help Requested - Moving to EE9 Contributors Blog |
Yup.To me this sounds like a Jakarta EE Adopters page. We’re rolling this out to a bunch of projects and working groups as we speak. WDYT?
_______________________________________________On Dec 18, 2020, at 2:25 PM, Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:_______________________________________________On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:To respond to the note I entered in the Google Doc., it sounds like Netty isn't actually a candidate for the Jakarta EE compatibility page since it doesn't implement the platform, or web profile. That's a bummer.
A bit off-topic for the thread but..There are enough open source projects implementing aspects of JakartaEE, if the compatibility page is not appropriate for something like Jetty or Netty then we should have another page for all the rest of us since we are all participating in Jakarta in some way, shape or form. If Jetty usage alone is any indication there is a very large community of users of JakartaEE components out there that have no need or interest in the larger stacks. Maybe such a page exists but I am not aware of it and I don't know that mentions on specific specifications is an appropriate location since many projects implement multiple specifications.cheers,Jesse_______________________________________________The TCKs listed by Chris earlier (JSP, Servlet, and WebSocket) are each available as separate TCKs. Refactoring the TCKs is only an issue for production of the TCKs, not for vendors who wish to certify compatibility. Mike, you are absolutely correct, no agreement needs to be executed. I would submit that the certification process and filing a GitHub certification issue for each API ought to be completed, if we are going to stick with the process we have outlined.
Personally, I would like to see more adoption of this process so that the community and vendors start to recognize the TCKs as a benefit for users across the board.
-- Ed
On 12/18/2020 8:56 AM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
On 2020-12-18 11:43 a.m., Ed Bratt wrote:
Ideally, the TCKs would be used to demonstrate compatibility, even with component Specs. Now that they are all open-source and available to any project, we should encourage folks to use them and show the community their value.
Yes. Exactly. And as a reminder, one of the biggest differences between Jakarta EE and Java EE is that under the Eclipse Foundation TCK License, you can make bona fide claims of compatibility with individual specs and without signing any agreements with anyone.
Refactoring "the TCK" into "the specification TCKs" still needs to be done. It will be pretty cool when it is.
On 12/18/2020 8:02 AM, Werner Keil wrote:
I added that remark (Servlet and a few other specs) because otherwise „Fully Compatible“ may sound a bit too much like the Full Profile.
--
Mike Milinkovich
Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
@mmilinkov
+1.613.220.3223 (m)
_______________________________________________ jakarta.ee-wg mailing list jakarta.ee-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-wg__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IJjLX23a9lmpsqLXbYQq6uAqrIaWyQuEN-cVtj50LvV7c9Efp9yM9vQxIGq3XAs$
jakarta.ee-wg mailing list
jakarta.ee-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-wg
jakarta.ee-wg mailing list
jakarta.ee-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-wg
jakarta.ee-wg mailing list
jakarta.ee-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-wg