Hi,
Why would a GF derivative not qualify?
Of course with some support added, Payara is also based on GlassFish, and I don’t know, if it’s even meant to be compatible with Jakarta EE at least on a platform level, but the name of Arjan’s Piranha also suggests it must be related somehow:
https://piranha.cloud/blog/2021/20210317_Studio_Jakarta_EE_Arjan_Tijms.html
And then there are Wildfly plus JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
As well as Open Liberty plus IBM WebSphere Liberty.
Both are merely derivatives with a few extra SLAS but you won’t find a totally separate codebase or product there either.
TomEE reuses at least some other Apache Projects like Johnzon etc. also used by Tomcat or the relics of otherwise dead Geronimo, so https://jakarta.ee/compatibility/ seems full of derivatives, why the fuzz now?
Unless they were a truly „bad actor“ like those freaks plaguing our mailing lists with spam, phishing or malware in disguise of the latest Jakarta EE quiz or what’s circled by the likes of Adam Bien or Marcus Biel on their blogs or even projects by Ivar and others, I see nothing wrong with that. Only if their compatible implementation, proof of compatibility or other pages obviously contained malware or some sinister plan and purpose, then of course they should be banned and blocked forever just like those „Tik Tok Kids“ or whoever they are.
Werner
Hi
I don't think there is anything in our process that is written down and speaks to the sentiment that's written here. If we want to provide some process description enhancements that speak to the issues written below, we can but I would recommend we include this submission.
-- Ed
On 5/3/2021 7:13 AM, David Blevins wrote:
I think you may have read my email as advocating for them to be included. It's definitely not the case.
I suspect that they'll have a hard time finding someone who will approve now. If that turns out to be the case, it basically means none of us thought it was of enough value to include in the release, but no one is the "bad guy" who blocked them. Sort of like in a very large corporation if you need permission, you might not ever find someone who will say no to your idea and engage you in a political fight, but you're also unlikely to find someone to say yes.
Yes, David. We have a low bar for being a compatible product. Someone marks it as Accepted and they are in as a Compatible Implementation.
But, the question here is where to include a GF derivative as a CI for ratification. Several teams have put in a ton of effort to ensure their products are Compatible with 9.1 and to be included on the ballot (GF, OL, WF, and now TomEE). Is it fair to these projects to allow a GF derivative (with no added feature or function) to be included on the ballot? Yes, they ran the TCK. And, they definitely qualify as a Compatible Product. But, do they qualify for being included for ratification and the ballot? That's the question.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)
From: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05/03/2021 08:10
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used for Ratification
Sent by: "jakarta.ee-spec.committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I think that criteria for getting on the ballot should be someone from the platform project (or respective spec project) has marked the certification request accepted.
As the entity casting the ballot, I definitely don't want to 1) be solely deciding who does or does not get on the ballot or 2) be perceived as blocking someone. If some one feels the CCR is acceptable they can approve and do not need to convince anyone. That's a pretty low bar and if no one is willing to cross it, then that's that.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On May 3, 2021, at 5:45 AM, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
Some of you may have noticed that ManagedCat has submitted their ManagedFish product as a CI for Ratification:
Hi Kevin
Can you also put ManageCat into the ballot as we opened a 9.1 certification request in https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/350
Regards.
Gurkan
I have posted my thoughts on this request both to his CCR (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/350) and the Specifications PR (https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/372). I basically indicated that I didn't see a need to list ManagedCat as a CI for Ratification and include it on the ballot because it's basically just a commercially supported version of Eclipse Glassfish. I welcomed him to submit his product for the Compatible Products page.
Gurkan does not agree and is asking to be included on the ballot. This is a unique case that is not directly outlined in the EFSP. What are the collective thoughts from the Spec Committee? We want to get this ballot out today, so an immediate discussion is required. Thanks!
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)
_______________________________________________
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://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://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!KUqpCSNpg4KTTlXtsMO96wHOnpk4gvRLLqWOGtcUeBv5yjzR8NsOBy2zCUjEu9U$
