Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Include Jakarta MV

[Edward Burns <Edward.Burns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Microsoft intends to vote 0 for inclusion of Jakarta MVC in EE 11.

Microsoft believes it is important Jakarta MVC remains competitive as
a standalone part of the overall platform. We don't want to require it
now but we believe it could be a very important addition when industry
trends continue to bring server-side rendering back into favor.

There have been some suggestions regarding the discussion of listing MVC as optional. 
Consider this statement of record from the Spec Committee regarding optionality.

"An individual specification can have optional features. However when a component specification 
is included in the Platform, Web Profile, and Core Profile, an optional feature must be explicitly 
declared as required, otherwise it is not required. This requirement is noted in the Platform
specification."

As this statement shows, the spec committee is moving in the direction to eliminate the
concept of "optional" specifications.

Microsoft would like to see some text in the platform
specification, ideally near or in the existing "6.1.3 Optional
Technologies" section, that introduces a concept of "most favored
specification" status (name TBD) and grants this status to MVC. The
specifics of this status are also TBD, but the basic idea would be
take the opportunity of officially using the Jakarta EE brand to
promote other Jakarta EE specs.

Some comments culled from the discussion.

Scott Stark wrote:

SS> For EE11 this means that Red Hat will vote against inclusion of
SS> MVC in either the platform or a profile.

Werner Keil wrote:

WK> Well, everyone has just one vote and nobody has a veto.

For decisions in the project, such as to include a new spec in any
platform, or which platform to include a spec in: committers have
Binding votes, others Non-binding.

I do encourage non-binding votes to give an indication of community
sentiment.

David wrote:

DB> In the last few platform releases we’ve steadily removed optional
DB> specs and communicated it’s ok for implementations to still
DB> include them as long as they pass the related TCK tests.

DB> If we’re not going to require it to be in every implementation,
DB> then we’re already good — implementations have the choice to ship
DB> this or any standalone spec.

This is inline with what the spec committe has said regarding
optionality. As far as I know, the spec commitee is trying to limit
the use of optionality as a concept. The reality is, everything not in
the spec is, by definition, optional.

On the other hand, the absence of a "most favored nation"-style status
does deny non-included specs an endorsement boost from the Jakarta EE
brand. Personally, I think we need a "most favored
specification"-style status for such specs.


| edburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | office: +1 954 727 1095
| Calendar Booking: https://aka.ms/meetedburns
| 
| Please don't feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside
| of your normal working hours.
|
| Reply anonymously to this email: https://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/contact