Skip to main content

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


Yes, the new specification process will be publicly discussed on this list.

But to set expectations, I think it will be a few months before that topic bubbles to the top of the priority queue. I would be happy if we exceeded expectations, but I am trying to be realistic.


On 2017-10-01 10:50 AM, Guillermo González de Agüero wrote:
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


_______________________________________________
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


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

EclipseCon Europe 2017

Back to the top