Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [DISCUSS] Introduce "favored specification"

[Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support the idea to add such a section to drive some tractions to the standalone specifications. I don't feel we should say "Candidate xx" nor "Favored". I feel the wording like "Additional Specifications" might be more appropriate.

Thanks

Emily

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 9:28 AM Ondro Mihályi via jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

I agree with the idea. There are some specs which obviously have some traction and have been released already or are close to having a 1.0 version but have not been included in the Platform.

I just don't like the term "favored". It sounds like they are already in the Platform and are just endorsed to use in the future (opposite of obsolete). I think it would be better to call them candidate, or incubator specs, or something like that, to indicate they are active and considered for inclusion in the Platform in the future, while other specs are not ready to be considered to become part of the Platform yet. Or we could use both terms - candidate for the specs considered for inclusion in the Platform, and incubator for the specs that are still not ready yet. Then we can easily promote both lists of specs without confusion.

> If we were to add a section like this, it would make sense to ask Platform implementations to mention in their CCR any such specs they implement so users can favor those Platform implementations.

I would go even further and mention the implemented favored/candidate specs, and maybe also other non-Platform specs, on the CCR summary page at https://jakarta.ee/compatibility/certification/10/ so that people can easily compare which implementations provide which specs.

All the best,

Ondro Mihalyi

Director, Jakarta EE expert

OmniFish - Jakarta EE Consulting & Support | www.omnifish.ee

Omnifish OÜ, Narva mnt 5, 10117 Tallinn, Estonia | VAT: EE102487932

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 4:21 AM David Blevins via jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 9, 2023, at 5:26 PM, Edward Burns via jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For discussion I'd like to separate the two aspects of "is this a good idea or not" and "what should we call this thing".

I like the idea.  Another aspect for discussion is "what are the requirements for being listed."

Some high-level thoughts on being included:

 - Specification is final (or will be when EE X is released)

 - Specification can be implemented on EE X

 - Specification TCK can run on EE X

The idea being we guide people to the exact versions of standalone specifications that have done work to ensure they can be implemented or run on EE X.

With that kind of definition, maybe simply calling them "Compatible Specifications" is apt.   Not a firm name suggestion, just spit-balling.

If we were to add a section like this, it would make sense to ask Platform implementations to mention in their CCR any such specs they implement so users can favor those Platform implementations.

-- 

David Blevins

http://twitter.com/dblevins

http://www.tomitribe.com

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev

--

Thanks
Emily