Hi Kevin,
That’s OK in which case I would suggest introducing the concept of LTS releases similar to the JDK so that developers that don’t follow the in’s and outs of this have a signal as to when to do their
migration. Jakarta EE 9 could then be just a namespace change but a future Jakarta EE release would be designated LTS and therefore would have new interesting things to migrate for and the comfort of a stable platform.
Steve
From: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Kevin Sutter
Sent: 07 May 2019 16:37
To: jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Transitioning Jakarta EE to the jakarta namespace
When the idea of Jakarta EE 9 was first floated, it was thought to be an immediate release after Jakarta EE 8 to allow developers to start experimenting and understanding the
namespace change. That would be the intent of a namespace-only Jakarta EE 9. Sure, it wouldn't provide anything "interesting", but it would provide a release to experiment with.
----- Original message -----
From: "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Transitioning Jakarta EE to the jakarta namespace
Date: Tue, May 7, 2019 11:20 AM
Hi Ivan,
Thanks you for the perspective I think you are correct. The “legacy profile” I think is a given as vendors of the runtimes will obviously support customers running apps
on the javax.* namespace for many years. The current Payara roadmap for example has Payara 5 supported out to 2028. I’m sure Jakarta EE 8 when released on the old namespace will be supported for many years. I think of it as a LTS release.
I also think you and Josh are also correct Jakarta EE 9 can’t just be a namespace change as no organisation building applications on Java EE 8 is going to take that
hit for nothing new and then as you say if there are new concepts and apis introduced then the namespace change will be small compared to modifying apps to take advantage of the new Jakarta EE 9 features.
Steve
From:
jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Ivan St. Ivanov
Sent: 07 May 2019 15:52
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Transitioning Jakarta EE to the jakarta namespace
Hi everyone!
To start with, I am a Java EE user and small scale developer and not developing Java EE servers or supporting huge customers or code bases.
I would opt for option 1 - the so called "Big bang". I phrased it as "so called" because it is a real big bang, but not for the customers. It's a big bang for the platform vendors.
What I mean is, when a customer gets a new release of an application server, they do not necessarily upgrade their app to the latest Java EE release supported by that application server They rely
on the fact that the server will support even their J2EE apps forever. If a customers wants to upgrade their apps to the new specs coming with the new EE release, the amount of work usually goes much beyond simple renaming of imports.
Just put it for an example in the perspective of JSF. You may have applications that you have written 10 years ago, which would look like much differently than contemporary JSF books, blogs and
examples showcase. But still they are supported by the application servers. And the decision to migrate those apps to latest and greatest JSF goes far beyond simple renaming of lifecycle scope imports. So we already have migration effort all over our specs,
but it was not put that dramatically so far.
I think supporting Java EE has never been out of scope for all the vendors here. Either formally via Legacy Profile as proposed by Richard or informally by byte code modification, I hope everyone
is already elaborating the possible options. But this will be the biggest work to be done with this transition in my eyes. And not reworking existing apps.
But again, that from the point of view of a person that just develops small to medium scale apps and does not develop the app server or support J2EE apps anymore.
Hello folks,
The Brandon idea "@Deprecated" mixed with the "legacy profile" can be pretty helpful to have better backward compatibility due we can have a profile that allows gradually deprecate previous APIs
versions, the profile ensure that we can have like a snapshot in which can start to work deprecating incrementally,
but in legal terms that brandon mention will be violating the agreement?
I apologize if this was captured in one of the options and I simply failed to interpret it correctly, but could the existing
javax APIs be frozen and left in for at least one, or preferably two, releases of Jakarta EE? Can the @Deprecated
annotation be added without violating the agreement? The APIs could be copied over to the
jakartaee package and new functionality and API changes can be made there. This would allow existing apps to continue to run
on newer implementations without making disruptive changes while also allowing developers that want to move fast to utilize the new package and have access to the new functionality. Implementers could also have a large portion the
javax APIs call through to the new
jakartaee APIs.
Great to hear from you!
> On May 6, 2019, at 7:22 PM, Hildeberto Mendonça <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> A way to add value is not increasing the maintenance cost and preserving backwards compatibility. I'm afraid Proposal 1 would break these two values.
> I would prefer Proposal 2 if jakarta worked as a wrapper around javax, preserving the same interfaces, reusing what is already there and innovating on the wrapper side.
Both proposals involve what you would call "a wrapper" and have the same basic backwards compatibility challenge of having to figure out how to make old apps run.
The primary place they differ is:
- do we break compatibility bit by bit over time in an as-needed basis
- do we break compatibility in one shot and get it over with
The primary question here is as a user how do you want to deal with migrating and potential compatibility issues:
- bit by bit over time
- in one shot
Knowing neither path frees you from having to absorb a backwards incompatible change and the solutions would be the same, which timeline is your preferred?
-David
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
--
Carlos Andres De La Rosa | Technical Architect
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
|
