[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Jakarta NoSQL
|
If these teams aren't seeking ballots, I would recommend their
evolutionary material probably should be on their project site
(gh-pages, repository, project pages -- wherever they are keeping
these items updated). If they are looking for readers, we can
amplify their need without updating the Spec. pages. (all my
opinion, others may have different opinions)
The question about how NoSQL and/or MVC, or any other
specification seeking Platform TCK changes would be within the
context of the Platform Spec. and must be considered in
collaboration with the Platform Committer team.
I'd encourage the Spec. groups or their representatives start
discussing this with the Platform committer team so that together
they can decide where these Specifications most naturally fit.
(and if we can improve things for vendors, that's all goodness
too.) That is important, but somewhat independent of what I
thought Ivar was asking for feedback about.
-- Ed
On 3/3/2021 8:40 AM, Werner Keil wrote:
There are no ballots until either of these
specs is final.
For the PR Ivar seems to be the Mentor so
he would drive it similar to what other Mentors did with the
platform PRs for Jakarta EE 9 or beyond.
What would be good not only for NoSQL but
MVC and a few other specs is to reconcider the compatibility
requirements and TCK e.g. does the Full Profile have to
support both JPA and NoSQL or would either of them be fine,
and similar with REST/MVC vs. the whole Servlet stack
(Servlets, JSP, JSF and a few others in that area)?
Maybe something like a „Web Lite“ Profile
or call it whatever based on at least
|
<dependencies>
|
|
<dependency>
|
|
<groupId>jakarta.ws.rs</groupId>
|
|
<artifactId>jakarta.ws.rs-api</artifactId>
|
|
<version>3.0.0</version>
|
|
<scope>provided</scope>
|
|
</dependency>
|
|
<dependency>
|
|
<groupId>jakarta.enterprise</groupId>
|
|
<artifactId>jakarta.enterprise.cdi-api</artifactId>
|
|
<version>3.0.0</version>
|
|
<scope>provided</scope>
|
|
</dependency>
|
|
<dependency>
|
|
<groupId>jakarta.validation</groupId>
|
|
<artifactId>jakarta.validation-api</artifactId>
|
|
<version>3.0.0</version>
|
|
<scope>provided</scope>
|
|
</dependency>
|
|
<dependency>
|
|
<groupId>jakarta.annotation</groupId>
|
|
<artifactId>jakarta.annotation-api</artifactId>
|
|
<version>2.0.0</version>
|
|
<scope>provided</scope>
|
|
</dependency>
|
|
</dependencies>
|
Plus MVC
and probably JSON-P plus JSON-B, that would pretty much cover
all the MicroProfile core dependencies, too and would make it
easier for some of those Vendors to finally pass the Jakarta
EE TCK as well ;-)
Werner
Agree with Ed.
This scenario is exactly what Progress
Reviews are for: updating a work-in-progress specification
to solicit interim-feedback from the world.
We've
not really done one of those yet, so this feels like a
good time to set the example others should follow.
So,
I guess it depends on their intent.
One
question that comes to mind is, where should a
specification team post and distribute for comment,
their work in progress -- as they reach their
various internal milestones.
In
my perspective -- the Specifications site ought to
show what has been approved in the various ballots
since the pages also include representation that the
members have voted on the content.
The
model we used in the past was for Specification
teams to work from their project sites, until they
needed a ballot/approval action. So, I'd have
recommended against trying to push an update to the
Spec. pages like this. If there isn't a link to
their working site, perhaps there should be. If they
need amplification to get eye-balls on their work,
we ought to be able to provide that separately.
If
they are working toward a ballot and this material
is what would be included in that ballot, I'd
encourage the PR, but if it's just to publicize and
get commentary on a working draft that isn't in some
way voted on by the members, I'd recommend it
belongs elsewhere.
--
Ed
On 3/3/2021 6:29 AM, Ivar
Grimstad wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if you've
noticed, but the Jakarta NoSQL spec project
has submitted a PR with updates to their
specification page.
What is our process for
this?
They are not requesting a
progress review at this point. Should they?
The PR does contain
references to "Beta 3" versions of their
artifacts (doc, API, TCK). Since it is not a
formal release, I guess that is ok. Or should
they have engaged in a release review for
this?
Ivar
--
Jakarta
EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse
Foundation
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!Nxr-exy-9hs3FVifYlBFKukIeFBQcBzQweV9uZAsCu1LKiRkcou8PpJm32HfXGQ$
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IehiLDal37sLCKKfw87W8E12k7dOdt-PzDKpbErg66KsvPsrN5f-FMJ8YXdJX6c$
