Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] On Naming

You are hardly alone. Pretty much everyone that has put in years of volunteer time into Java EE would like the opportunity to at least provide feedback on these issues that effect them directly - if for no other reason than to ensure transparency and accountability to the end users of this technology.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/1/17 7:50 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] On Naming

Thaks Mike. Is that expected to be openly discussed? Or will it be decided by the same group that agreed on the EE4J name? 

I understand (although don't share) that the project creation was done pretty privately. But now that the project is live, I really expect we can start participating on those important aspects.



Regards,

Guillermo González de Agüero

On dom., 1 de octubre de 2017 16:38 Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-10-01 5:15 AM, Guillermo González de Agüero wrote:
> One question I have on that is wether EE4J could be used as the
> OpenJDK equivalent for Java EE and in the same way that MicroProfile
> has just done with MP Config: spec developed on an open group and then
> submitted to the JCP.
>
> I envision a very similar idea for EE4J: create working groups,
> develop specs and APIs and then, once done, submit a massive "Java EE
> 9" JSR for it, that will then release the artifacts with the "javax"
> package (this point is *really* important), and maintaining the Java
> EE name.
>
> That leaves the application server certification open though. But with
> all TCKs sources avaiable, I doubt certification by itself will be so
> important as it is now, since everybody will be able to test servers
> on their own to verify they are spec complaint.
>
> I also imagine major vendors won't like this option that much since
> Oracle would still be responsible of the final "Java EE" release
> through the JCP, but I think this can be an acceptable compromise
> solution.
>
> Is this an option that's on the table?
>
It is my understanding that the new specification process will not be
using the JCP.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community

Back to the top