[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] about the status of atinject
|
Hi,
I fully understand your desire to get atInject changed but I'm not
really happy if atInject gets forked because it is not only used in
Spring/JavaEE applications but in simple Java-Applications via Google
Guice or Eclipse DI to name 2 libraries implementing the standard.
Forking it means that you potentially put pressure not only to EE world
but the rest of the Java ecosystem. If I'm not wrong it is still
possible to evolve atInject but you need to keep it in the JCP, would
that be the better way to go for atInject.
I fully understand that those frameworks could still use the "legacy"
javax-namespace but you open the door for fragmentation in a part of the
java ecosystem who would not have been affected at all!
Tom
On 10.05.19 08:10, Christian Kaltepoth wrote:
> I'm also +1 for integrating AtInject into Jakarta EE.
>
> And +1 for contacting the former EG first.
>
> Am Fr., 10. Mai 2019 um 05:57 Uhr schrieb Josh Juneau
> <juneau001@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:juneau001@xxxxxxxxx>>:
>
> +1 on forking for Jakarta EE.
>
> Josh Juneau
> juneau001@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:juneau001@xxxxxxxxx>
> http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com <http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com/>
> https://www.apress.com/us/search?query=Juneau
>
> On May 9, 2019, at 4:01 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:struberg@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Am 09.05.2019 um 21:54 schrieb Mike Milinkovich
>>> <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> <mailto:mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>>>
>>> The patent grant in the ALv2 is far, far weaker than the patent
>>> grants in the Jakarta EE Spec Process.
>>
>> This is a very broad argument and we should rather clarify this to
>> avoid confusing non legally trained readers.
>>
>> I personally strongly believe that the patent grant in the ALv2 is
>> absolutely sufficient.
>> The main difference afaict is that for some older specs Oracle
>> wanted to sign over patents to them, while the ALv2 only _grants_
>> patent licenses to *every* downstream consumer [1]. So the ALv2
>> patent grant is - in my eyes - evenmore aligned with the new
>> Jakarta Specification License than the old (imo overreaching)
>> handling. It's also way more practical also in hindsight of tax law.
>>
>> Anyway, since I don't believe that there are any patents filed for
>> atinject stuff anyway it is hopefully a merely theoretical
>> discussion. So I will stop here.
>>
>> And first we need to focus on whether JakartaEE is interested to
>> fork atinject at all - from a purely business demand point of view.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#patent
>> _______________________________________________
>> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
>> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
>
--
Tom Schindl, CTO
BestSolution.at EDV Systemhaus GmbH
Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 5-7. A-6020 Innsbruck
Reg. Nr. FN 222302s am Firmenbuchgericht Innsbruck
