Sounds great! Looking forward to your PRs! -Markus From: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of arjan tijms
Sent: Mittwoch, 29. August 2018 18:55
To: jaxrs developer discussions
Subject: Re: [jaxrs-dev] Vendor commitments Hi Regarding vendor commitment: As you are a *JAX-RS committer* I hoped to hear some words about your personal targets in this project for the next months besides the encouraging words about Payara's involvement in *Jersey*.
I definitely have a couple of plans, basically about the programmatic registration of features (vs being scanned by annotations), and specific steps for CDI support, such as built-in beans for the various JAX-RS artefacts, and their implementation in Jersey. -Markus (1) JAX-RS 2.1.1 does not modify code, hence this is irrelevant for this particular release.
You mentioned the mail being about 2.2 too: ---> "we need to look ahead on the upcoming release 2.2 and on the releases of your products." ---> " I'd like to kindly ask all vendors to commit to our agreed schedule (at least 2.1.1 and 2.2) and tell the public here, which release of their product will support which version of JAX-RS 2.1.1 / 2.2," I'm not sure if there's any -agreed- schedule for 2.2, nor whether there can be one at this point. The current date for 2.2 was put in by you as a placeholder date. For 2.2 there might be an agreement then (hopefully).
For a September release? I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but not holding my breath. If not, the PMC should decide to use jakarta.* simply.
I'm afraid it's not that simple. For totally new code, sure. But to evolve existing code, this is going to be a huge pain. Take the javax.ws.rs.Path annotation. There's a gazillion amount of code out there already using this. We can't enhance this annotation, for example, as long as there is no agreement. (2) I assume your vendor commitment in the name of Payara will follow soon? ;-)
I personally can't speak for Payara in that way, but Steve (who can) has mentioned before that Payara is absolutely willing to commit to Jakarta EE where possible. Since we're using Jersey, and we're already committing to Jersey, I personally don't see any issues on the implementation side of things. -Markus Hi, Second, I mentioned that I don't think it is wise for vendors to make commitments to implement a spec without a spec document or TCK.
There's also this tiny but not unimportant issue of not being able to legally use the javax.* package names still. I was just on a call with among others Bill Shanon the other week, and it was iterated again that we can not yet publish (modified) code using this package. _______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev
_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev
|
