[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] : Re: Proposal for handling "optional" features in Jakarta EE Working Group's specification
|
> I'm a bit unclear if this proposal is just addressing the Platform and
Platform Profile specifications. This might be more clearly stated (if
this is correct or not) at the outset of the proposal.
Yes, the original intent was focused on the Platform and Web Profile
specifications. We should clarify that. Dan, since you have the pen, can
you do this clarification?
> I'd recommend reviewing the following sections of the Platform 9
Specification to determine if these sections cover, or can be worked to
cover, the proposal:
6.1.3 Optional Jakarta Technologies - describes a method for moving
technologies from Required, to Proposed Optional, to Optional, to Removed.
6.1.2 Required Jakarta Technologies (specifically Table 2, Jakarta EE
Technologies) as well as the similar lists under 9.7 Full Jakarta EE
Product Requirements. Also, 9.6 Optional Features for Jakarta EE Profiles.
Absolutely agree that these sections need addressing. But, we wanted to
get a general direction agreed to before attempting to shoehorn a solution
into the Specification itself.
> Currently, profiles may declare features and/or component APIs as
optional as well. We may want to disallow that both in the Platform and
also for Profiles.
Yes, fair point. Not sure if this just applies to the eventual
Specification updates, or if it needs to be part of the proposal.
> While we are interested in lessening the burden of ratification, we may
also want to solicit input from users to see if there is still perceived
benefit to features that we might want to formally remove. For example, I
am pretty sure that Oracle users continue to use elements of Jakarta XML
Web Services and also SOAP with Attachments, even though these are
relatively stable APIs. I am aware that products may continue to include
these but there's still a potential for perception concerns.
Yes, agree. We decided we wanted to get the Committee on the same page
before expanding to a wider audience. So, once we get Committee agreement
on the stated direction, then we will want to open this to a wider
audience and discussion.
---------------------------------------------------
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: Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05/12/2021 21:07
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Proposal
for handling "optional" features in Jakarta EE Working Group's
specification
Kevin, This is the total of the notes from the May 5th discussion (which I
was unable to attend due to the hour of the meeting): Proposal for how to
handle optional features in Jakarta EE specifications including Platform
and Web Profile. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Kevin,
This is the total of the notes from the May 5th discussion (which I was
unable to attend due to the hour of the meeting):
Proposal for how to handle optional features in Jakarta EE specifications
including Platform and Web Profile. The proposal is here.
Committee to continue to review, provide comments on the mailing list and
in the document. To be explored further in the next meeting.
I'm a bit unclear if this proposal is just addressing the Platform and
Platform Profile specifications. This might be more clearly stated (if
this is correct or not) at the outset of the proposal.
I'd recommend reviewing the following sections of the Platform 9
Specification to determine if these sections cover, or can be worked to
cover, the proposal:
6.1.3 Optional Jakarta Technologies - describes a method for moving
technologies from Required, to Proposed Optional, to Optional, to Removed.
6.1.2 Required Jakarta Technologies (specifically Table 2, Jakarta EE
Technologies) as well as the similar lists under 9.7 Full Jakarta EE
Product Requirements. Also, 9.6 Optional Features for Jakarta EE Profiles.
Currently, profiles may declare features and/or component APIs as optional
as well. We may want to disallow that both in the Platform and also for
Profiles.
While we are interested in lessening the burden of ratification, we may
also want to solicit input from users to see if there is still perceived
benefit to features that we might want to formally remove. For example, I
am pretty sure that Oracle users continue to use elements of Jakarta XML
Web Services and also SOAP with Attachments, even though these are
relatively stable APIs. I am aware that products may continue to include
these but there's still a potential for perception concerns.
Hope this is useful,
-- Ed
On 5/5/2021 6:52 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
Just to show that I found this thread... ;-)
We started this discussion on today's Spec Committee call. Limited
participation, but the general direction seemed to be acceptable. A
couple of participants would like more time to digest the document before
commenting. Please review the meeting minutes for our discussion points.
Let's use this thread to discuss any additional items before our next Spec
Committee call.
---------------------------------------------------
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: Paul Buck <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04/30/2021 14:18
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Proposal for
handling "optional" features in Jakarta EE Working Group's specification
Sent by: "jakarta.ee-spec.committee"
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dan Bandera in collaboration with Scott Stark and Kevin Sutter authored a
proposal for how the Jakarta EE Working Group should handle "optional"
features in specifications. The document is here, please review, provide
comments and suggested edits. I will include this as an agenda topic in
our Specification Committee call on Wednesday, May 5th.
Thanks ... Paul
_______________________________________________
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
