Re: [ejb-dev] Branding Over-correction

[<Hussain.NM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 

Would it make sense if we drop what’s new in EJB 3.2, 3.1, 3.0 and just start from Enterprise Beans 3.2 stating the change in name and transfer from JCP to Jakarta EE Specification Process and referring to the JSR345. This will provide a bridge between the two specifications.

 

Thanks

Hussain

 

From: ejb-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <ejb-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of David Blevins
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 7:50 AM
To: ejb developer discussions <ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ejb-dev] Branding Over-correction

 

Hi All,

 

One of the things we discussed in the Steering and Specification committee discussions over whole Java trademark issue is that references to the prior JCP versions of the specifications can/should use the previous name.

 

In our context, if we're referring to the specification in general we'd use Jakarta Enterprise Beans.  If we're referring to a specific version, we should correctly use the trademark for that version.

 

We're overall good, but there are a few places we explicitly refer to EJB 1.1, EJB 3.0 that we have corrected to Enterprise Beans 1.1 and Enterprise Beans 3.0, etc.  This is primarily in the changelog "What's New in...", but there are a handful of other places.

 

I think at minimum we should fix the changelog section so the "What's new in..." sections use the correct trademark for that version.  Additionally, we may want to explicitly add both "Enterprise JavaBeans 3.2" and "Jakarta Enterprise Beans 3.2" to that section and explicitly state that "Jakarta Enterprise Beans 3.2" is equivalent to "Jakarta Enterprise Beans 3.2" and is where the name change occurred.

 

It's clear in our memories now that EJB 3.2 is where the brand change occurred, but I know from experience 10 years in the future that will get fuzzy.  It won't be helped by the fact that we no longer have references to Enterprise JavaBeans so we wouldn't be able to visibly see in the spec where the change occurred and since it is never explicitly mentioned it will eventually be something new people need to rely on older people to tell them the history.

 

We might be better off making sure that history is explicitly stated in the spec.

 

What do people think and is this something someone would like to contribute?

 

-- 

David Blevins

http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

 

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email, and/or any action taken in reliance on the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Where permitted by applicable law, this e-mail and other e-mail communications sent to and from Cognizant e-mail addresses may be monitored. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email, and/or any action taken in reliance on the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Where permitted by applicable law, this e-mail and other e-mail communications sent to and from Cognizant e-mail addresses may be monitored.