| [jakarta.ee-spec] Jakarta EE Spec Committee Approved Meeting Minutes - January 13th, 2021 |
Attendees (present in bold):
Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu
Dan Bandera - IBM - Kevin Sutter, Tom Watson (guest)
Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov
Andrew Pielage - Payara - Matt Gill
Scott Stark - Red Hat - Mark Little, Scott Marlow
David Blevins - Tomitribe - Jean-Louis Monteiro, Cesar Hernandez
Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative
Marcelo Ancelmo - Participant Member - Martijn Verburg
Werner Keil - Committer Member
Scott (Congquan) Wang - Primeton - Enterprise Member
Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic, Paul Buck (chair)
References: JESP, Spec Committee page including approved meeting minutes
Past business / action items:
Approval is requested for the meeting minutes from the December 16th meeting as drafted - Approved.
Agenda:
Ongoing tracking of individual specs and their progress through the JESP- see spreadsheet.
Jakarta EE 9 Specification Committee retrospective document ready for input.
Send to the Spec Committee list on 01/14 for initial input
Send to jakartaee-spec-project-leads and jakarta.ee-spec (discussion) lists early the week of 01/18
When is a Service Release (patch release) and Release Review required?
If a spec project only wants to update the JavaDoc without any updates to the API or Spec, what’s the process? Is a service release required? Who decides (project, spec committee)?
Major / Minor / Patch (x.y.z)
“Service Release must not include any significant new features and/or breaking changes.”
No functionality changes whatsoever to the specification
Recommendation: Update the JESP with the above clarification
Process for updating the spec page to bump the release level for the 3rd digit (Service release)
Email to spec discuss list with link to PR, afterwards a spec committee member will review and approve the PR after independent review.
Draft language, review w/ spec committee, update the JESP and Operations Guide [Kevin & Ivar]
Times for the Spec Committee bi-weekly calls in 2021, alternate between current time and 2:00PM UTC / 6:00AM PD / 9:00AM ET / 3:00PM CET / 10:00PM CT / 11:00PM JT
Record the calls
Voting encouraged to be on the mailing list
Try it out and see if it helps. Start on the first call in February on the 10th
Place UTC time first in the list of times
Scott Marlow: TCK Process pending changes are awaiting feedback via https://github.com/jakartaee/jakarta.ee/pull/1018?
Question: We don’t have an exception process to cover TCK challenges like jaxrs-api/issues/938 that could be worked around by adding a Jakarta deployment descriptor (e.g. beans.xml with `bean-discovery-mode="none"`).
Should we update https://github.com/jakartaee/jakarta.ee/pull/1018 to allow TCK challenges to prescribe a workaround that doesn’t involve test code changes, such as adding a beans.xml?
Acceptable if the TCK challenge is accepted by the spec project and spec project agreeds that is a valid workaround of adding the (described challenge) Jakarta deployment descriptor (e.g. with agreement for that specific deployment descriptor contents).
Werner: Make decisions based on the discussion for Jakarta - MicroProfile relationship outlined in the CN4J Alliance Ideas presentation:
Should Jakarta EE X (10 or above) be allowed to consume any MP spec/API also on a spec/API level (e.g. like many consume CDI, Servlet, JSON-P etc.) despite a different namespace?
If that was the case then many of the challenges and caveats Jakarta EE itself has and solved in the release cycles also must include some of the qualified MP candidates. And especially circular dependencies must be avoided. This is especially severe for some MP specs like MP-JWT which relies on 6 different Jakarta EE specs and would be almost impossible to use without problems, while several others like MP Config luckily restrict themselves to CDI at least for the API.
What about the “Mixed Profile” ideas as well as more flexible Profiles for Jakarta EE regardless if those would contain only Jakarta EE or some selected “Third Party” specs like MicroProfile
Topic being discussed by commenting on the CN4J Alliance Ideas presentation and on the cn4j-alliance mailing list.
The following items was not covered and will be added to the agenda for next meeting
Review agenda items from the December 16, 2020 call that require further follow-up.