Hello Tom,
I believe that
Arjan’s message is best interpreted as Arjan performing his due diligence with regard to being an open source advocate, committer and Java Champion.
Arjan Tijms AT wrote:
AT> As a personal comment, not with my coordinator hat on […]
AT> Just my 2 cents, and otherwise not opposing this change. Just wanted to make it clear that we understand
AT> this is not strictly beneficial to everyone.
To which, my reply is: duly noted.
Ivar Grimstad IG wrote:
IG> Community input is welcome, but only votes cast by Specification Committee Representatives will be counted. […]
IG> The Specification Committee is composed of representatives of the Jakarta EE Working Group Member
IG> Companies (Fujitsu, IBM, Oracle, Payara, Tomitribe, Primeton Information Technologies, and Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co.),
IG> along with individuals who represent the EE4J PMC, Participant Members, and Committer Members.
IG> Specification Committee representatives, your vote is hereby requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject).
IG> Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.
Yes, and I believe Arjan’s message is a response to Ivar’s “Community input is welcome” statement. For the purposes of the vote, Arjan and I are members of the community.
With my release co-coordinator hat on, I request that we all apply the same interpretation to Arjan’s email for the purposes of the ballot.
Thanks,
Ed Burns Jakarta EE 11 release co-coordinator.
| edburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | office: +1 954 727 1095
| Calendar Booking:
https://aka.ms/meetedburns
|
| Please don't feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside
| of your normal working hours.
|
| Reply anonymously to this email: https://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/contact
From: jakarta.ee-spec <jakarta.ee-spec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Thomas Watson via jakarta.ee-spec
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 1:01 PM
To: Jakarta specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [BALLOT] Progress Review for Jakarta EE 11
I have misunderstood you I think, so want to clarify. My understanding is that this change does nothing to force implementations to run on Java 17. If an implementation wants to require Java 21 as their runtime,
they are still free to do so and are free to certify their runtime for EE 11 successfully.
I also don't believe this caused any confusion for EE 10 that allowed certification on Java SE 11 or Java SE 17.
Hi, On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 16: 36,
marceloancelmo via jakarta. ee-spec <jakarta. ee-spec@ eclipse. org>
wrote: +1 (LJC) I understand that this is beneficial to the whole community, as they have the option to choose the between versions 17
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
I understand that this is beneficial to the whole community, as they have the option to choose the between versions 17 and 21
As a personal comment, not with my coordinator hat on, I do have to protest that this is strictly beneficial to the whole community.
This change doesn't benefit extension libraries like e.g. OmniFaces either, which now can't use JDK 21 features and market itself "For Jakarta EE 11". With my OmniFaces hat on, I have to say "For Jakarta EE 11, but not the JDK 17 implementations
/ installations of Jakarta EE 11". Clearly that is a far more confusing message. Effectively this change just means lowering the JDK version. OmniFaces will be forced to use JDK 17 (as it's the lowest common denominator).
Just my 2 cents, and otherwise not opposing this change. Just wanted to make it clear that we understand this is not strictly beneficial to everyone.
