Re: [ee4j-community] Use of javax.* in new EE4J projects

[Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>]

To be clear, the Java EE Guardians community also believes a clean break from the Java EE brand is potentially a good thing. The issue is a largely forced distance from the Java brand as well, not just the Java EE brand. I think it's hard to argue the Java brand is not a good thing to retain.

I think the linked JotForm default text makes the distinction quite clear. The text actually largely describes our community's joint position already. Perhaps it is worth a brief read. There is no need to ultimately submit the form if one is not compelled.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 12, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and say that sadly the Java EE brand is seen as a negative thing.  Unfortunately we were never able to shake off the dire reputation of J2EE, despite the vast improvements to the platform.

I think a clean break is actually a *good* thing.

Cheers,
Martijn

On 12 November 2017 at 18:05, reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am very glad someone like yourself from the vendor/EC side see this as an issue and is willing to publicly identify this as an issue.

This is by far one of the biggest issues we have identified so far in the Java EE Guardians community. As an initial step, we have asked the community to send Oracle and other key EE4J stakeholders direct and personal feedback on this: https://form.jotform.com/72648425384161. I suspect it is the sole matter with regards to EE4J that these folks have been reached out to about the most.

Unfortunately clearly the community has still not really been heard on this matter. While I am sure the root cause of this issue is Oracle's legal and branding departments being overly rigid, this is something that Oracle executives can intervene on if they deemed it worthy of solving.

From the Java EE Guardians community, our likely next steps are to arrive at a joint open letter asking EE4J stakeholders to address this issue - Oracle being the main party of our request. Any support you can lend us in this regard, even if only moral, would be helpful and highly appreciated.

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

-------- Original message --------

From: Greg Luck <gluck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 11/3/17 2:07 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [ee4j-community] Use of javax.* in new EE4J projects

Hi

Had a call with Mike today about moving JCache across to EE4J.

We have JCache 1.1 in the JCP review process now and it should be out in a few weeks’ time. So we could consider moving after that point. 

The biggest issue to me is that, at least currently, any new APIs will not be allowed to use javax. Today we use javax.cache. This would mean that JCache 2 would need to change its package name. We have 13 implementations out there and a huge amount of user code that uses javax.cache. This would be an extremely disruptive change.

In our case Oracle is a copyright owner along with myself for the spec. As an owner, Oracle if they wished, should be able to allow JCache 2 to continue to use the javax.cache package even though the process has changed from JCP to the yet unnamed and to be formed Eclipse Community Process.

Interested in anyone’s thoughts on this. 

Regards

Greg Luck

_______________________________________________
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