| Re: [jnosql-dev] JNoSQL and Jakarta EE |
Hi Olli/all, I did not look up the other lists like EE4J PMC on what’s decided there or in the Steering Committee, but as a member of the Spec Committee I know, it was discussed, or even sort of voted on in the call on August 29, see https://docs.google.com/a/eclipse-foundation.org/document/d/1wulckg85DQPGy7vGVlsWhw4H041q-ju5RD-HoYaoqMw/edit?disco=AAAACHCidzI&ts=5b871208&usp=comment_email_document I was among the first who raised the question in either that or a prior call after Otavio mentioned the idea of going for a new JSR here. The minutes don’t say it was “approved” like other aspects like the “Jakarta” namespace, but e.g. David clearly mentioned it in a document around the namespace with a potential groupId like “jakarta.nosql” following what was already decided on for next versions of existing specs. Otavio also had a JCP EC presentation last week https://www.slideshare.net/otagonsan/eclipse-jnosql-updates-from-jcp-september-11-114052314 (the minutes are probably not out yet) where he summarized what had been discussed there. Basically a new JSR could only be started with a “javax.nosql” or similar namespace, if it was explicitly aimed as a “standalone” JSR that does not target a platform like the one formerly known as Java EE. So if we and Otavio went for the JSR option, it would pretty much have been disqualified from Jakarta EE. So migrating it from “technology” to “ee4j” seemed as the logical answer. These things can take some time, the migration of the Science WG project to a TLP took many months. It hopefully won’t take that long, but several bodies like the EE4J PMC have to approve those things. Quite frankly (and you can also see that in the comment or elsewhere) JSR 382 is in a somewhat similar situation. Except it was approved by the JCP EC before Oracle made its decisions towards Java EE and namespaces like “javax” for new specs, therefore it could continue under “javax.config” but strictly speaking a new version could still end up under “jakarta.config” and unlike all the other 380s JSRs it has not even filed an EDR in time or showed a lot of progress compared to its inspirational competitor MicroProfile Config. To avoid having up to 3 packages and namespaces (org.eclipse.microprofile.config, javax.config and likely jakarta.config some day soon) it could make a lot of sense to just have two, like “microprofile.config” and “jakarta.config”. Of course you and others at Pivotal may have a better idea on which you prefer and (in a future version of Spring) may even consider adopting like the “javax.inject” part of CDI? ;-) Cheers, Werner From: Oliver Gierke Hi all, congrats on the post, Otávio. I'm wondering who actually decided to publish that decision as a fact? Did I miss any decision from the JakartaEE working group? Am I the only one that thinks it's weird, that a vendor blog goes ahead and publishes that those decisions were made without a formal decision by the JakartaEE WG? Could be solely my mistake in missing that, but if it really has been decided by the WG, then there's probably public record of that you could link to? Cheers, Ollie > Am 24.09.2018 um 13:28 schrieb Otávio Gonçalves de Santana <otaviopolianasantana@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Congratulations to us, we'll be the first specification at Jakarta EE in the history. > > https://www.tomitribe.com/blog/jnosql-and-jakarta-ee/ > > -- > Otávio Gonçalves de Santana > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava > site: http://about.me/otaviojava > > _______________________________________________ > jnosql-dev mailing list > jnosql-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jnosql-dev |