| Re: [servlet-dev] [servlet-spec] New features in EE9 for Servlet-API 5.0? |
Jakarta EE8 had been functional equivalent to Java EE8.
And Jakarta EE9 is a renaming release only?
Thus Java EE8 = Jakarta EE8 = Jakarta EE9?
Where is the progress?
Herzliche Grüße
Michael Müller
@muellermi
blog.mueller-bruehl.de
Read my books
Practical JSF in Java EE 8 (apress)
Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams (apress)
Beginning Java (leanpub.com/BeginningJava)
Visitors (leanpub.com/visitors)Am 20. Januar 2020 17:31:54 MEZ schrieb Arjan Tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>:Hi,Yes, all or almost all projects will go for rename-only indeed. For Faces we had started too with new features, but will explicitly exclude those. Security and its foundational specs will do rename-only releases as well. Same for _expression_ Language, Messaging and Interceptors.Kind regards,Arjan TijmsOn Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:56 PM Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:If most other projects are making their EE9 release a rename only release, then I think that servlet-api should follow and not try to be special.However, it will be a hassle for vendors managing releases for 4.0, 5.0 and 5.1... but probably down among the noise against the whole hassle of the rename anyway :(cheersOn Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 08:16, Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Dear ee spec group.The servlet-api project is trying to come up with our project plan for our 5.0 and 5.1 releases.The 5.0 release will be our javax->jakarta rename release and the key question we have is can we also put some new features into that release? Or does it have to be exactly like 4.0, but with only the name changed?There are some minor features that we really need to add to stay relevant to current browser and specifications. A key example is sime-site cookie support as proposed in https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/servlet-api/pull/271 and the matching schema change https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-schemas/pull/1If changes like these cannot be in a 5.0, then we will need a 5.1 as soon as possible after 5.0.I understand that have a pure renaming release would give some degrees of simplicity when porting, but I'm not sure that helps much if soon afterwards we have to deal with demand for 5.1Thus our question is - can we make some minimal additions to the API in 5.0 on the basis that they will be reviewed against the criteria of not hindering any automated porting tools of 4.0 to 5.0?regards----_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#86) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [michael.mueller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
_._,_._,_