| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Specification Committee call agenda, October 3/2018 |
Depends on the requirements of the JSP specification. If the JSP specification doesn't depend on some optional elements of the Servlet specification, the full JSP CI wouldn't need to implement those optional elements of the Servlet specification. In general, a JSP CI wouldn't be implementing the Servlet spec at all, but would require a Servlet CI to run on.
What does it mean to "add" a Compatible Implementation to a Final Specification?
As I've said previously, the specification document should not refer to any implementations.
The Project Review should include information about Compatible Implementations. Once the review is complete, there's no need to update that information, but we might want to separately maintain a list of Compatible Implementations for a given spec.
Wayne Beaton wrote on 10/ 3/18 07:51 AM:
As discussed in today's meeting, the problem with the above is that it seems like both the PMC and the Spec Committee are providing "architecture" and/or "vision" for the projects.Roles of the PMC and Specification Committee:
PMC manages the governance process, and provides oversight. They ensure that the open source rules of engage are observed and the EDP as a whole is followed. They participate in the Intellectual Property process to ensure that requests for review are technically sound (e.g. ensure that the use of third party content makes technical sense). They provide best practices. The PMC owns the software "stack" (i.e. their view spans the concerns of all subprojects). The PMC tends to work more at the development/technical level.
Specification Committee owns the overall vision of how all the different specifications fit together. <strike>They provide a channel for intellectual property flows (I may not be expressing this correctly).</strike> The Specification Committee provides oversight for the implementation of the EFSP and certification process on behalf of the Working Group, owns the process of promoting and maintaining Final Specifications
Approvals from both parties are required for lifecycle Reviews.
The PMC is in the Project Leadership Chain; the Specification Committee is not.
Somebody has to define the architecture and somebody has to check that the result fits with the architecture. I expected that the Spec Committee, like the JCP EC, was doing the latter. I'm not sure whether it's the PMC or the "platform project" that does the former.
There's a theoretical problem here if one group defines the architecture and another group gets to say "I don't approve what you've done because I disagree with the architecture". I think we solve that in practice by having many of the same individuals/companies involved in both the creation and the approval.
I'd love it if the FAQ included examples of the kinds of activities or decisions that the PMC and the Spec Committee engage in, something more concrete than "oversight" and "ensure the EDP is followed".
I'm fine with keeping it in the process document but not saying much about it.
The term "profile" is a flag for marking specifications that extend branding privileges to Compatible Implementations. Further, we apply special voting requirements to profiles, so we need a definition. Do we need the term "platform" to be formally specified as part of the process? What is special about platforms (with respect to the process)?
Yes.Is the use of this terminology sufficient?
"Compatible Implementation: is any implementation that fulfills all requirements of a Specification Version as demonstrated by fulfilling all requirements of the TCK."
Are these statements sufficient?
Yes.
A Compatible Implementation must fully implement all non-optional elements of a Specification Version, must not not extend the API (no supersetting), and must fulfill all requirements of the corresponding TCK.
Is it sufficient to require that just one Compatible Implement fully implement a specification, including all optional elements?
(Fix "not not" above.)
Depends on the requirements of the JSP specification. If the JSP specification doesn't depend on some optional elements of the Servlet specification, the full JSP CI wouldn't need to implement those optional elements of the Servlet specification. In general, a JSP CI wouldn't be implementing the Servlet spec at all, but would require a Servlet CI to run on.
A Specification Version must identify at least one Compatible Implementation under an Open Source License that implements all optional elements of the Specification and fulfills the requirements of all elements (including optional elements) of the TCK.
By way of clarification, when we say that a CI must implement all optional elements, does this apply to the prerequisites? e.g. (hypothetical) if one has to implement all optional elements of the JSP specification; does one have to also implement all optional elements of the servlet specification, or only those optional elements of the servlet specification that the JSP specification requires be implemented?
The answer to this question, should be an FAQ entry.
What does it mean to "add" a Compatible Implementation to a Final Specification?Do we need to make it clear that adding a Compatible Implementation to a Final Specification does not change the Final Specification? i.e. no ceremony is required. IMHO, the process by which Compatible Implementations get added is an implementation detail.
As I've said previously, the specification document should not refer to any implementations. The Project Review should include information about Compatible Implementations. Once the review is complete, there's no need to update that information, but we might want to separately maintain a list of Compatible Implementations for a given spec.
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.