Jakarta EE Spec Committee - January 12th, 2022
Attendees (present in bold):
Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu
Tom Watson - IBM - Emily Jiang
Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov
Andrew Pielage - Payara
David Blevins - Tomitribe - Jean-Louis Monteiro, Cesar Hernandez
Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative
Marcelo Ancelmo - Participant Member - Martijn Verburg
Werner Keil - Committer Member
Jun Qian - Primeton - Enterprise Member
Zhai Luchao - Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co. - Enterprise Member
Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic, Paul Buck (chair)
Guests: Scott Stark, Scott Marlow
Past business / action items:
Agenda:
Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of individual specs progressing through the JESP
Action: Initiate Creation Review ballot for Jakarta RPC
EE 10 Release Review pages that have been created so far are short on detail on what has been changed or added in this release. Discuss our review goals so we can leave a consistent record. [Ed]
Release text summaries need to be more definitive on what was changed and/or added in a release. It is okay to include links to issues or PMI page summaries. Avoid implementers having to hunt through spec documents (diffs) to figure out what changed.
Suggestion: add to mentor checklist.
Ivar recommended that the revised ballot template text is used for new ballots being initiated.
Call-to-action: Getting Jakarta EE 10 release ballots underway [Mentors]
Discussion/action item about explicitly disallowing people from creating or modifying classes under the jakarta.* namespace
Java Language spec that explicitly says this is forbidden for java.* and javax.*. When we migrated to the jakarta.* namespace, we did not explicitly create a similar statement.
Do we need to adopt a statement such as:
"The packages java, javax, and jakarta are reserved and trademarked. Applications should not create or modify classes under these packages. Applications that do so have unspecified behavior and may not deploy, function properly at runtime, or be portable."
"The jakarta.* package is reserved and trademarked by the Eclipse Foundation. It is forbidden to modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend this package without explicit permission from the Eclipse Foundation through the established Jakarta EE Specification Process. Applications that modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend this package have unspecified behavior and may not deploy, function properly at runtime, or be portable."
For namespaces, here’s what is in the EF IP framework today:
See the Eclipse Foundation Trademark Usage Policy which says
Also see the EF TCK License which says
"4.c. comply with any requirements stated in the Specification with regard to subsetting, supersetting, modifying or extending the Specification in any Product claimed to be compatible with the Specification."
Also see the (Jakarta) Compatibility Trademark License Agreement which says
“1.11 “Specification-Compatible Implementation” shall mean an implementation that: … (ii) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Eclipse Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, interfaces, fields, methods or constructors within the Eclipse Name Space, other than as required or authorized by the Ratified Specification.”
Notes from discussion:
Usage of the Jakarta namespace for TCK packages versus application code used by a TCK. It is okay for the TCK, not for application code(?)
Are there technical limitations for TCK packages being in the Jakarta namespace?
How far do we want to push on allowing TCK to use the Jakarta package namespace? Apparently some products will have issues and will require remediation.
Need a clear recommendation, refer to community ballot underway in the Platform Project for consideration (not binding)
Proposal: Specification Committee to author the definitive and final position on TCK package naming (binding). Ballot to be initiated on the public Jakarta Spec Discussions mailing list.