| Re: [ee4j-community] Process Question |
Thanks for the replies - they were very helpful.What type of process changes are being envisioned for EE4J? Is the JCP being used as the template for creating the new process or is some other model being considered?
I understand that EE4J will be separate from the JCP, my question about the JCP was more aimed at whether that process will be adopted and then modified. If you were with an organization that signed off on JCP participation (full member), would you have to go back through your legal department to participate in the EE4J? If I understand it correctly, the JCP membership levels (Full Member vs. Observer) are driven at least partly by IP concerns.
Regarding licensing/certification, in my opinion it will be critical to ensure that EE implementations be compliant so there isn’t confusion. We also don’t want to have the specification “fork” in the future.
I really hope that Java EE 9 gets under way while EE4J is getting organized. At JavaOne 2016 a preliminary roadmap for EE 9 was announced - a year later I didn’t hear anything about those proposals (hopefully I missed to).
-RyanOn Oct 12, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:One clarification, Martijn on Question 5... Otherwise, good responses to Ryan's questions. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------- https://www.
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn:linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org wrote on 10/12/2017 02:58:22 PM:
> From: Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 10/12/2017 02:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Process Question
> Sent by: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> As Mike previously mentioned a lot of this has to be worked out.
> I'm hoping the project charter will be approved on the 23rd of Oct
> which will then allow the PMC to be formed and so on...
>
> That said I'll take a stab at some of the likely directions.
>
> On 12 October 2017 at 20:08, Ryan Cuprak <rcuprak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a couple of questions regarding the path forward with Java EE:
> 1. Are implementations going to “license” the name in some legally
> binding way?
>
> I really don't know yet, but I'm sensing that most folks want some
> sort of certification / compliance pass mark. Whether that's a
> legally binding license I think is up to the community to decide.
>
> 2. Are there going to be requirements on licenses, such as an
> implementation has to support version X for Y number of years and
> release a new version within a specific period of time?
>
> Same as above.
>
> 3. How will enforcement of compliance be done?
>
> If compliance is mandated, then a TCK like mechanism would seem to
> be the common approach here (again, only if this what the community wants it)
>
> 4. What were Sun/Oracle’s license requirements? Is that public by chance?
>
> Mike covered that I think.
>
> 5. Is the JCP process being totally tossed?
>
> I'd say yes. Oracle doesn't want EE4J governed in the JCP and
> frankly nor do any of the vendors and nor do a good chunk of the
> users (I appreciate there are more than just 1 who would like it to
> stay there). Again I feel that way not because Oracle was evil or
> terrible, but the fact remains that the JCP is not an independent
> body, and so I think something new is required.
The JCP and JCP process are not going away or being disbanded. They will still exist and function in the same capacity as they do today. There are Java SE and even Java EE JSRs (Configuration JSR, for example) that are still using the JCP processes.
The question is whether EE4J will us the JCP process. In that regard, then I would tend to agree with Martijn's answer. The current thinking is that some other yet-to-be-determined process will be used for ratifying EE4J specifications.
>
> 6. Are the spec leads for EE 8 going to lead the specs for EE4J?
>
> Up to the community to decide but I think you've already seen RedHat
> and IBM offer to take lead on several JSRs and Oracle (not binding
> them to anything here) also indicated that they would take
> leadership for other specs if asked to do so.
>
> 5. Will work continue in the JCP on EE 9 while EE4J gets going or
> is everything grinding to a halt?
>
> I think that will stop, would need an Oracle answer on that one though.
>
> My thoughts, I’ve been trying to educate JUG members and my employer
> on the JCP. If someone had a complaint or suggestion I would tell
> them to submit feedback to the relevant spec. Should JUGs continue
> to pursue adopt-a-jsr? I would rather see a gradual evolution than a
> revamp of the process.
>
> I'll be encouraging all Adopt a JSR folks to simply move to the EE4J
> community and engage in a traditional open source project manner.
> The final barriers have effectively been removed, so there won't be
> a need for a separate programme, just that folks contribute at Eclipse :-).
>
> Regarding the charter, instead of a “nimble” process, I would rather
> see goals - one release a year with a point release or consistent
> and predictable updates etc.. I wouldn’t start out a charter by
> pointing out flaws but that is just my opinion.
>
> That's good feedback, I think another version of the charter is
> coming out in the next few days, so *please* do comment on that
> aspect again there.
>
> BTW: I did see the blog entry "On Naming, or Why EE4J Does Not Suck”
> but I have to comment that as a JUG leader, the EE4J name definitely
> stirred passions. The last time I received negative feedback was
> when Oracle bought Sun. I received text messages and emails
> complaining before I saw the announcement.
>
> Naming is hard, naming by committee is impossible. That said EE4J
> is the Eclipse Project name and will not be the actual branding /
> certification name, which is something the community can come up
> with (after much bikeshedding one suspects ;p).
>
> Thanks Ryan they were thought provoking Q's!
>
>
> -Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________ https://dev.eclipse.org/
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
> _______________________________________________ https://urldefense.
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> u=https-3A__dev.eclipse.org_mailman_listinfo_ee4j- 2Dcommunity&d=DwICAg&c=jf_ iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg&r=R9dtOS3afYnRUmu_zogmh0VnVYl2tse_V7QBUA9yr_4&m= HubZd9CtjAjGXMjxqtcPpp4VFtYE08 eif4GCAJdFlfQ&s=3iVN-
> u4RRo1Zl-pHVVyWaVQdFbI-hba2afGynZ5hs6s&e=
_______________________________________________
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