Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [POLL] Would you support the as-is javax JA

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

> From: Jonathan Gallimore <jgallimore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: jakartaee-platform developer
discussions <jakartaee-platform-
> 
> I think asking your specific question and collecting the feedback
is
> very reasonable. I'd be interested to see if anyone was planning to
> do that, and if so, what their perspective is. So far, I've been on
> 2 calls, and read the same emails as everyone else. I don't recall
> seeing anyone looking to build a non-backward compatible 
> implementation without JAXB and JAX-WS. Is there specific guidance
> or goals from the steering committee or elsewhere that is driving
> the pruning effort that provides more context behind the desire to
> remove these specs?

Right.  Most of the participants
at this point have existing application servers with existing customer
bases.  Thus, we are very concerned about backward compatibility.
 But, we don't want to preclude new implementations from entering
the market if they have to support backward compatibility.  So, we
are attempting to define a Platform that works for both existing and new
implementations.

> 
> I do think the poll is worth asking and I'm grateful that people are
> answering. However, to me, both questions appear to focus on what
> vendors want, as opposed to what consumers need from the platform.
> Consumers will be looking at what's in the platform to understand
> what they are going to get. If the group decides to remove JAXB and
> JAX-WS from the platform, I think that needs to be publicized, and
> we need to be able to explain why removing these specs is in the 
> best interests of both the platform, and consumers. I don't think
> the statement of vendors will likely include these as part of their
> backwards compatibility anyway, provides a good explanation as to
> why removing these widely used specs is in the best interests
of the
> platform or consumers.

Consumers are a key part of this
discussion.  Again, we are assuming that the vendors are taking their
customers' interests into play when they are voicing their opinion or their
vote.  We continue to try to get consumers more involved with the
Jakarta EE working group committees so that we can hear their input, but
it's been tough.  They just want the solution to "work"
-- whatever that means to them.

> 
> > I think the issue here is really about JAXB and JAX-WS et. al.
> 
> I'm specifically thinking about these two specifications. We've 
> pointed out technical issues with split packages for providing 
> backwards-compatibility for EJB should some of the EJB functionality
> be removed. I don't particularly have issues with Jakarta XML 
> Registries, Jakarta XML RPC, Jakarta Deployment or Jakarta 
> Management being pruned, although if people state that they are 
> still widely used, then that ought to be considered.

I think we are all in agreement that
the latter specs you mentioned are in wide use and can safely be removed.
 It's the EJB-related items and WS-related items that are causing
most of the concern and discussion.

Thanks,
Kevin

> 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