Thanks for clarifying, Markus :)
Mark, Thanks, I see, my text was not clear enough. Thanks for pointing this out. What I actually meant was "Some people working at PMC members multiply explained (but not officially declared in the name of the PMC) that the focus of the work at EE4J is to provide code in the sense of API, RI, TCKs, but that it is not decided yet if future standardization will happen, or which external standardization organization will possibly do a later standardization as an official Java standard. It was clearly said (unfortunately I can't tell by whom) that the Eclipse Foundation is definitively not a Standardization Organization, and it was agreed by some people working at PMC members that it could still be the JCP if they shorten their processes, but in future this is might not be the only choice." At time of writing, only the JCP is able to do such official standardization, as a matter of fact, hence the situation is unchanged, but my text now should be such politically correct that nobody feels offended anymore (I hope). I hope it is clear now and sorry for the confusion. BTW, it would be great if the PMC would give official answers so discussion and misunderstandings could stop.
-Markus yes, I mean 2017. Already living in next fiscal year. ;-) I never said the PMC made an *official statement* in this direction. I just said PMC members told this. If the majority of attending PMC members share a vision in such a panel, what one takes home is the impression that this is what the PMC will effectively do.
Markus, that may be what you meant to say but you said: "The EE4J PMC multiply explained that future versions of existing specs will be developed at the Eclipse Foundation, but *will* be standardized still through the JCP" which clearly states that the EE4J PMC said that we would use the JCP. The PMC did not say that. Individuals on the PMC who said that to you will only have been expressing a personal view. I’ve said the same thing around JavaOne, for instance. Doesn’t mean it is coming from the PMC or that it will be the way things evolve. Let’s please keep to the facts.
David Delabasse, Dmitry Kornilov - Oracle If we now start to discuss the difference between personal statements of members of EE4J members then we should not organize EE4J panels anymore. I disagree. I’ve been on panels where I represent Red Hat and if I have to make a personal opinion I call it out as such; if I make a statement on behalf of Red Hat I do likewise.
What people expect from such panels are statements, not opinions. I don’t agree. It can be a mix.
And what people clearly assume is that someone invited for Red Hat speaks for Red Hat, and someone invited for IBM speaks for IBM. And there you have it: someone from Red Hat speaks for … Oh Red Hat. But NOT for the PMC. Surely you see the difference?!
The plan to code first and then ask another institution for standardization was publicly confirmed at EclipseCon 2018
earlier this year by Mike Milinkovic and the attending part of the PMC. That does not mean the PMC has made a statement. I can make a statement here and now but it would no more be an official statement from the PMC than something any other PMC member might make AS AN INDIVIDUAL. Please do not make tenuous links. If a statement was made on behalf of the PMC I’m unaware of this. In fact I don’t even think the PMC was in place by that time. Check the YouTube video of the EE4J Panel (about 14:00 or later). Whether or not this is JCP is a fruitless discussion: As a matter of fact, at the moment only the JCP is legally and organisational able to perform such a standardization in the next months, and they did not stop any of their work right now or changed any of their processes; they even had elections recently. Maybe there might be different organization later, but none such is under real construction right now. Leo, this is not true. The EE4J PMC multiply explained that future versions of existing specs will be developed at the Eclipse Foundation, but *will* be standardized still through the JCP. "Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation?" My understanding is that this means that there might be Maintenance Releases of these JSRs fixing bugs or updating the JCP version, for example. New versions of the Java EE / EE4J Specs would *not* be done thru the JCP. Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork. Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873 Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA) Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork. Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873 Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA) _______________________________________________ee4j-community mailing listee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
--- Mark Little
JBoss, by Red Hat Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork. Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873 Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
|