| Nice explanation Mike. Taking on what Mihai said, “The name EE4J might not even reach their ears”, some do not even know if Eclipse is in there and EE4J to some of my peers is “Entreprise Edition for Java”. But it would be really nice if names/implementations like GlassFish, Wildly would be kept as such.
Regards,
Nice clarification, Mike. Regarding the paragraph "what people will be installing is more likely to be called something like Eclipse Glassfish, or Eclipse MicroProfile", I would like to point out the following: It is OK to have a new name for Eclipse's whole effort on JavaEE, but I would surely not rename the projects/products to contain "Eclipse" in them. This is because most developers already cannot explain what JavaEE *is*. To most, the question "What is the reference implementation of JavaEE?" sounds strange. To them, JavaEE is just "webapps written in Java". The name EE4J might not even reach their ears, so it's ok, but Glassfish or Wildfly are names that they see everyday. If "Eclipse" is added to that, the confusion will be even higher, I believe. Best regards,
Mihai
Thanks Mike for your clarifying post. While I still don't like the EE4J name, things seems way better now to me.
One question I have on that is wether EE4J could be used as the OpenJDK equivalent for Java EE and in the same way that MicroProfile has just done with MP Config: spec developed on an open group and then submitted to the JCP.
I envision a very similar idea for EE4J: create working groups, develop specs and APIs and then, once done, submit a massive "Java EE 9" JSR for it, that will then release the artifacts with the "javax" package (this point is *really* important), and maintaining the Java EE name.
That leaves the application server certification open though. But with all TCKs sources avaiable, I doubt certification by itself will be so important as it is now, since everybody will be able to test servers on their own to verify they are spec complaint. I also imagine major vendors won't like this option that much since Oracle would still be responsible of the final "Java EE" release through the JCP, but I think this can be an acceptable compromise solution.
Is this an option that's on the table?
Regards,
Guillermo González de Agüero
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
_______________________________________________ ee4j-community mailing list ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
|
