I can change the concurrency RI project name if needed if someone tells me what to do
😊
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Werner Keil
Sent: 03 February 2021 10:47
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Updating Compatible Implementationbrands
I would not use "Eclipse JSON Processing 2.0.0." in one case while e.g. Jakarta Concurrency uses "Jakarta Concurrency CI 2.0.0.", see
https://jakarta.ee/specifications/concurrency/2.0/, just add a "CI" there, too ;-)
Werner
Yes, I agree.
There needs to be a clear difference in the naming.
Moving this to a separate thread so we don't overlook it.
> Unrelated comment, I noticed the compatible implementation listed for JSON P is wrong. It says the compatible implementations name is "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0." That's not appropriate. For 1.2 we used "Eclipse JSON Processing 1.1.5"
>
> - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/1.1/
> - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/2.0/
>
> This is part of the Advance Implementation Neutrality topic in our 2021 plan. Thihup's implementation cannot be perceived as competing against "the official" Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0 implementation also called "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0."
>
> No implementation should be allowed to use the spec branding like that, even if it is in at Eclipse, a former RI, or happens to be in the same repo as the spec. The fact that the Eclipse implementation is in the same repo is something that needs to be fixed.
Until we fix it, we still need to use neutral branding like "Eclipse JSON Processing" or "Eclipse Mail."
Thoughts?
-David
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
