Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] VOTE: Specifications to add inJakartaEE 9

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nobody is proposing
to *remove* JAXB from Jakarta EE.  Nobody is proposing to *remove*
JAXB from Java SE.  If we don't do anything and leave JAXB as it is
today, nothing changes.  Nothing.

JAXB is no longer
delivered with Java SE 11 and beyond.  But, this is not a big problem.
 All of the Application Servers that have claimed support for Java
SE 11 have already figured this out.  It's not rocket science.

Werner's question
on whether "Tomitribe plans to support JAXB?" isn't that far-fetched.
 If JAXB is moved to Jakarta, somebody or some team will have to step
up to own the Specification Project for JAXB.  And, maybe that's how
we should play this out...  Leave JAXB off the list for Jakarta until
somebody or some team steps up to driving and owning this effort.  I
know the Lukas has started this activity, but I'm not sure if this a long-term
commitment or not...  https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jaxb

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:
       Amelia
Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, erik.brangs@xxxxxx
Date:
       11/27/2019
13:53
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] VOTE: Specifications to add    
   inJakartaEE 9
Sent
by:        jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

+1 Erik and quote
you:

 I
think that not providing technologies that were available in Java EE 8
(even if they came from Java SE) is very risky for the future of the project
because it runs contrary to the expectations of backwards compatibility
that might exist. In my opinion, backwards compatibility is essential and
in the special case of Jakarta EE it is not only about what's actually
in the specs but also about the perception of changes by the community.

Stated on another thread [linked below]
, it seems that the current work being done in Jakarta EE 9 release is
not considering carefully the pros & cons. At this time, we don't have
the actual data from users, as an ecosystem,  to sustain current
desires of what effectively cut or not.  Being patient while doing
the work now seems the wisest step forward instead of graving into a whole
that cannot be fixed later, Trust is lost via small actions & rarely
lost with just 1 action itself. I am wary of what currently is.  I
am considering not only the coders but the users as both are core and important
for this project's success.   

Current methods are pushing on the side
of radical steps, that is a red flag in itself for users. Are we really
choosing to become that ecosystem? 

Erik, you are one great example
of  a Jakartee whose arguments are impossible to ignore.  

-- The power-of-preparation,
POP, from this community cannot be underestimated or deferred. We have
now. 
The project requires
individuals whose arguments are hard to ignore or push around, those who
makes us understand our weakness are the most valuable contributors. --
Nov
26th forum Community thread

Amelia
Eiras 
twitter.com/ameliaeiras
Tribe: http://tomitribe.com 
    https://tribestream.io 
 
OSS:  http://microprofile.io 
   https://jakarta.ee


On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:32 AM Erik
Brangs <erik.brangs@xxxxxx>
wrote:

Hi,

On 27.11.2019 19:21, Werner Keil wrote:
> Well it breaks as soon as they run their Java EE 8 compliant app or container in a JDK above Java SE 9, so it is not the fault of Java EE or Jakarta EE in that case.

To me, it does not matter whose fault it is. What matters to me is that it breaks my expectations. I think that not providing technologies that were available in Java EE 8 (even if they came from Java SE) is very risky for the future of the project because it runs contrary to the expectations of backwards compatibility that might exist. In my opinion, backwards compatibility is essential and in the special case of Jakarta EE it is not only about what's actually in the specs but also about the perception of changes by the community.

> Offering this in a way that allows applications to use it but not necessarily blow up the Full Jakarta EE stack more (instead of also removing stuff) Sounds reasonable.

A more comprehensive Full Jakarta EE profile is an asset from my point of view. The more technologies it contains, the more functionality I can implement in pure Jakarta EE without having to rely on external libraries.

I'd prefer more profiles with a reduced set (e.g. "Cloud" or "Opinionated REST") over a smaller full profile. A newer, bigger profile (e.g. "Everything but the kitchen sink") would also be fine with me. However, AFAIK Jakarta EE 9 won't contain any new profiles so what's important for me is what is in the full profile.


Kind regards,

Erik Brangs
_______________________________________________
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