Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] On Naming
It's clear that the JCP is a very "heavyweight" process as it is now, but even MicroProfile has shown interest in feeding JSRs for some of their specs (at the moment, only Config).

I believe we can use a similar approach, doing the heavy lifting here and then moving it to the JCP with Eclipse Foundation as the spec lead.

That approach should hardly slow down us or interfere on our processes.


Regards,

Guillermo González de Agüero

On lun., 2 de octubre de 2017 2:06 Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Two reasons come to mind:
  1. There is a strong desire for a lighter-weight, more nimble process.

  2. The IP and process rules around the JCP are complex, and almost impossible to change. The intent will be to create a new process which provides a level playing field for all of the participants and stakeholders. A more open and egalitarian process will hopefully result in more participants and investment in the platform.


On 2017-10-01 3:52 PM, Michael Nascimento wrote:
Could you expand on the rationale for that, Mike?

Regards,
Michael
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:38 AM, 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.
_______________________________________________
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