+1 - we’ve been involved for 5-7 years as the LJC and we’ve very
much come to the same conclusion
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 19:30, Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We've tried to change the JCP over the years and have made some
improvements but many of the things we (collective we) wanted to
change ran into issues with various legal and process problems. I'm
not allowed to disclose but suffice it to say that I believe we have
evolved the JCP as far as we can where it is today and time spend
trying to change it more would be better spent elsewhere.
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com [1]
On 9 October 2017 11:02:33 reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I would like to hear a bit more from the EE4J stakeholders, but my
impression is that Oracle has no intention of doing anything else
with Java EE in the JCP.
You are correct in that I am alluding to the fact that Oracle has
the unique power to unilaterally vote down whatever it wants in the
JCP. While I am sure that could be changed, I am not sure it is
worth it or whether it is even accomplishable. My impression also is
that the Eclipse Foundation is not that averse to functioning more
like a standards body.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/9/17 1:48 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] EE4J and the JCP
There is no Oracle veto on JSR votings in the EC.
What Reza most likely means
ishttps://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#3.7.7 [2]
Only for platform Umbrella JSRs (like Java EE 8 and before) Oracle
must vote "yes" in order to make it pass. It could therefore fail a
ballot except everyone else voting in favor, but it could not flip a
failing vote unless it was just theirs missing to get to 3/4
positive votes.
EE4J is deliberately NOT meant to be an update to the Java EE
platform in JSR terms. Otherwise a Spec Lead transfer ballot would
be inevitable to do so. This seems neither in the interest of Oracle
nor Eclipse or others. It'll be a "fork" (what everybody feared ;-)
but hopefully one that remains compatible with existing APIs and
standards where they continue to be used.
Nevertheless, if EE4J "Release Train" 1.0 had to go through the JCP,
then a few changes to the JCP documents could be necessary. In fact
Oracle being the only possible Umbrella Spec Lead seems gone with
2.10 already. So jcp.next did some work on that.
Whether EE4J still has obligations for backward-compatibility with
its "ancestor" Java EE or not, that will be a good question. Most
importantly to companies who trust in a mature, reliable stack that
often needs to run for decades.
Some "Hipsters" and more end customer facing solutions could afford
to break and change things every other year, but when it comes to
Industrial, Financial or even Safety Critical systems, you cannot
afford to lose money or lives just because an upgrade from "My
Bleeding Edge Hipster API" was upgraded from 3.0 to 5.0 and
everything is different and incompatible.
Whether Oracle is interested in either Java Embedded or Enterprise
that is hard to say. All the things announced at Oracle Code around
Fn sound like the only common denominator seems something running on
the JVM, sometines not even that but some .js script library. As
long as it runs in the Oracle Cloud and not somewhere else.
If other vendors are still interested that e.g. your WAR, EAR or
"Fat JAR" can be deployed against a Wildfly, IBM Liberty, Payara or
TomEE container beside a few others then standardization remains
crucial, regardless if it's JCP.org or something else.
Werner
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:59 PM, <ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community [3]
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
ee4j-community-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: EE4J and the JCP (reza_rahman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:59:01 -0400
From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] EE4J and the JCP
Message-ID: <mailman.503.1507568346.6952.ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It is not that well known, but Oracle actually wields sole veto
power in the EC. As you also know, as holder of most of the JCP IP,
Oracle can basically ignore whatever the EC says. At best, the EC
can stop JCP progress, but that's hardly productive or in any ones
interest.
I've always wished the EC well. It was setup with the right
intentions and has well meaning folks like yourself on it. The
practical reality from an Oracle management perspective is sadly
very different from what it should be. Indeed many companies in the
EC Oracle management views with deep seated suspicion.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Werner Keil
<werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx> Date: 10/9/17 12:29 PM (GMT-05:00) To:
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] EE4J and
the JCP
I don't think there are so many alternatives.?Eclipse never was and
never intends to standardize things itself.
There are always actual standard bodies like OASIS, OGC, OSGi and
others defining standards which projects build upon.
There are not too many such organizations that would suit the needs
of the Java or other languages and platforms.?Sun discussed with a
few like ISO, but I know best, almost all of them are extremely
slow-moving.
Take W3C and efforts like HTML5, it took decades. The update to JSR
363 is fueled by changes to the Metric System and SI Standard
(inter-related to various ISO standards). The first major change to
that standard since 1960!!!
Then there are other players like NetFlix who just don't care about
standardization. I spoke to one of their speakers at the JCP Party
and they said like Inspector Morse "We don't join things". Meaning,
like Facebook or several others they do most things in the open, but
they have no interest to standardize them nor to join either Eclipse
or Apache Foundation or the JCP.
I agree with Kevin's assessment on this. Efficiency is also just
one issue
at the JCP. The bigger issue is direct and indirect Oracle
control,
especially at the EC level. While these are solvable problems, the
question
we should ask is whether it is worth solving instead of using
avenues that
are already far more vendor neutral.
What could be more vendor neutral than the JCP EC?Oracle has no way
of overruling things in the EC.?
Jigsaw was nearly stopped by the EC. The issues that got many of us
vote against it came by members of the community. And were
ultimately heard. If this was Microsoft, Facebook or even Google in
their own projects like .NET, OpenGraph, Android, etc. they merely
listen to a few large partners and vendors maybe but you would not
see their projects take the community that much into consideration.
The only JSR that failed a Renewal Ballot was also led by Oracle.
That one also got delayed by other duties the Spec Lead was drawn
into (e.g. stuff like Project FN;-) so the EC killed it and Oracle
could only vote against that with a single vote like everyone else.
As for "a new JCP.next" that's already happening. Especially when it
comes to new JSRs that differ very little from the previous ones
(e.g. the Java SE Umbrellas) there shall be an easier way to file
them based on existing information.
Werner
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:00 PM,
<ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
? ? ? ? ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
? ? ? ? https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community [3]
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
? ? ? ? ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
? ? ? ? ee4j-community-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
Today's Topics:
? ?1. Re: EE4J and the JCP (Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 15:59:38 +0000
From: Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero? ? ? <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] EE4J and the JCP
Message-ID:
? ? ? ?
<CAG1ZpUa0u=cV1N=YPmDkZ1QEYB8HQDYFVzmkV-FDPA4VeL7tsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
But creating a new standards body that fulfils the requirements of
other
Java specs will also need a lot of work.
I'm not against the idea of creating a new standarization process,
but the
JCP still provides us some benefits like the use of the Java name
and
packages. I'd personally don't create a new system while those
issues are
not resolved.
The Config JSR will be a good experiment of the MicroProfile style
of
defining a spec on its own and then moving it to the JCP just for
standarization purposes.
I believe that approach could work for us *while* we define a new
system.
Rushing to create a new body will probably make us fail and fragment
community.
Some kind of EG and process will be needed in the meantime but
MicroProfile
has shown us that progress can be fast yet solid with little
bureaucracy. A
new JCP.next can be created in parallel.
Maybe private discussions are already taking place on this subject.
Some
overview of the ideas and intentions would be appreciated.
Regards,
Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero
El lun., 9 de octubre de 2017 17:38, reza_rahman
<reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
escribi?:
I agree with Kevin's assessment on this. Efficiency is also just
one issue
at the JCP. The bigger issue is direct and indirect Oracle
control,
especially at the EC level. While these are solvable problems, the
question
we should ask is whether it is worth solving instead of using
avenues that
are already far more vendor neutral.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/9/17 10:59 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] EE4J and the JCP
I can understand Michael's and others concerns voiced in this
thread...
Splintering the Java community is definitely not a goal of this
EE4J
movement.? But, the JCP has not demonstrated that it can move
faster.
Yet...? Granted, there is a requirement for Java SE to have it
move faster
to meet the newly proposed 6 month cycles, but it hasn't been
proven yet.
The MicroProfile community has shown that it can innovate on a
faster
schedule with it's recent MP 1.1 and 1.2 releases.? I'm not trying
to say
that the MicroProfile efforts produced "standards", but I am
noting that
innovation needs a lighter weight process in order to compete and
succeed
in this cloud-native, microservices world.
The specification process in EE4J has not been determined yet.?
Maybe if
the JCP proves that it can process JSRs in a more expedient
manner, then
maybe it can or will be considered as part of the EE4J
specification
process.? In the mean time, we have to leave other options on the
table.
--? Kevin
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Martijn Verburg
<martijnverburg@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi All,
I can clarify some of this.? Responses inline
On 9 October 2017 at 10:00, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero <
z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
As I said on Markus thread, my concern is that we might not be
moving
Java EE to a different place, but discontinuing Java EE and
creating a new
project based on it. On that matter, we'll need clarification
from Oracle
and the participating vendors: are you really open sourcing
what's already
there, or are you making Java slimmer by moving away everything
but the
standard edition? In the second case (which I hope is not the
case), I'd
sadly understand that a common standards body wouldn't make
sense.
The JCP process has been blamed for being too slow, but how will
it
allow Java SE to release a new version every 6 months? Surely
that will
need some changes on the JCP. Could those changes also help us?
Should we
participate on those discussions asking for our needs?
Yes the JCP is altering its process, primarily cutting down the
minimum
and maximum times for various phases and voting periods.? This is
being
worked on in conjunction with the folks from OpenJDK and Oracle
and I
everyone is comfortable with the changes being proposed (just
needs to go
through various votes to pass).
In my opinion it's still too early to abandon the JCP. We should
see
before if it can still be changed to take everyone's concerns
into account
(Java SE, Java ME and Java EE) and in case it's too difficult,
I'm with you
and Markus, we should create a common replacement.
I think the EE4J community will need to define a *vendor neutral*
body to
effectively replace the JCP with regards to defining
specifications and
certifications for whatever the community produces.
The JCP is the best construct we could have at the time. But
because it
is 'heavily influenced' by a single vendor (Oracle) it's simply
not the
true neutral body that we all want going forwards.? That's not to
say that
the JCP and/or Oracle did a bad job in stewarding Java EE /
Enterprise
Java, but a more open body will certainly be an improvement.
PS: could you please point me to some link on the Java ME
movement you
mention? I haven't found any information about it.
Gluon, V2Com and other ME companies are trying to get ME kick
started
again.? please contact pmo@xxxxxxx to get involved.
Cheers,
Martijn (London Java Community - JCP EC member)
Regards,
Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero
El lun., 9 oct. 2017 a las 4:19, Michael Nascimento
(<misterm@xxxxxxxxx>)
escribi?:
Consolidating my thoughts here with the correct thread name:
My main concern is that, while we might be doing something
better
suited for the Java EE community, we're scattering the Java
community even
more. OpenJDK has its own contribution agreements, rules and
process; we're
about to create something different here; everything else left
in the JCP
will follow the current process; apparently Java ME wants to do
something
similar to EE. So this new reality will mean one's
contributions to one
part of Java means nothing when they contribute to the rest,
there'll be a
lot to learn process-wise, paperwork to be filled... We're
actually making
it harder for people to contribute to Java *in general*.
While I understand OpenJDK is kind of a "sideways" situation,
I'd like
to propose we pursue something here in terms of specification
process that
can be used for all Java specifications in the future that find
the JCP too
heavyweight and problematic, so that we don't have one solution
for every
facet of Java. Something like "Open Standards for Java". If key
players as
IBM, Red Hat, Tomitribe et al and some communities, as the LJC,
conclude
the JCP is not the way to do things going forward, I'm making a
plea for
JCP.next to be established here - and not just EE4J spec
process;
otherwise, we're fragmenting the community even more and making
contributions to Java, as a whole, even more painful.
To Mike Milinkovich, following up the question I've made: if
the
Eclipse Foundation is the one submitting the JSRs, wouldn't all
IP from the
specs belong to the Foundation? Wouldn't it be open and
egalitarian?
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20171009/f9a6234f/attachment.html
[4]>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 2, Issue 46
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20171009/f6574597/attachment.html
[5]>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 2, Issue 52
*********************************************
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
_______________________________________________
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 [3]
--
Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile)
Links:
------
[1] http://www.aqua-mail.com
[2] https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#3.7.7
[3] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
[4]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20171009/f9a6234f/attachment.html
[5]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20171009/f6574597/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
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
