Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jaxrs-dev] Updating Roadmap to reflect Jakarta EE 9 Release Plans
Markus,

I think that is possible.  The reason I put 2Q20 was that our release depends on other Jakarta spec projects that may not be as motivated as we are - I know we depend on Activation and JAXB - there might be a few others, but I can't recall offhand.  We will need them to release first so that we can consume them in the jakarta namespace.  If they get done early enough in 1Q, then we're good.

I'm ok with pushing for 1Q, but we may want to make a note that our schedule is dependent on other projects.

Speaking of which, our project will need to fill out the sizing spreadsheet[1] to determine when we think we could release... but this is probably a conversation for a different thread.

Thanks,
Andy


On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:29 AM Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andy,

 

in fact I think we could do 3.0 somewhere within Q1 already and 3.1 few weeks past that.

 

-Markus

 

Von: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Andy McCright
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2019 13:31
An: jaxrs developer discussions
Betreff: Re: [jaxrs-dev] Updating Roadmap to reflect Jakarta EE 9 Release Plans

 

Ivar,

 

I am also +1 with your plan.  That should satisfy the platform team, and satisfy the industry’s desire for faster releases.

 

Markus, do you want to adjust the date for the 3.1 release to roughly match the 3.0 release?

 

Thanks,

Andy

 

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:53 AM Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ivar,

 

thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm +1 with all you say.

 

The one year comes from Andy's recent changes to the JAX-RS roadmap.

 

-Markus

 

 

Von: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ivar Grimstad
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2019 10:33
An: jaxrs developer discussions
Betreff: Re: [jaxrs-dev] Updating Roadmap to reflect Jakarta EE 9 Release Plans

 

 

 

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:17 AM Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for your proposal. I would pref if we discuss first before changing the WIKI to not confuse readers.

 

As the platform project is not our superior (only the spec committee and EE4J PMC are), and as the SE Bootstrap is backwards compatible (it is an *optional* feature), I do not see that we MUST shift SE Bootstrap to 3.1. As it is already existing since 1,5 years in Jersey, so our downstreams EE 9 platform and Eclipse GlassFish both have no efforts including it, and customers have no drawbacks. Hence I would vote for including it in 3.0 already unless either the spec committee or the EE4J PMC officially forbid that.

 

The PMC does not have a view on this matter. 

 

It is up to the spec project to choose which version of the individual components they include in the platform. As long as there isn't anything jeopardizing the delivery plan of Jakarta EE 9, I see no reason why they should object to adding the optional features since they're already implemented by Jersey. 

 

What you _could_ do is to release a 3.0 without the optional features and a 3.1 with the optional features directly after and leave it to the platform project which they pick for Jakarta EE 9. If it is within the required release dates in order to make it to the release, I see no reason why they would choose 3.0 over 3.1...

 

 

Regarding the time frame, users expect to get things more early and more often. 3.0 (zero new features!) in Q2 and 3.1 (more or less one single feature) in ONE YEAR FROM OW is much too late, much too less. It is "one year lost" from the user's view angle. We have to commit to more in less time (again, it is not IBM, Oracle and Red Hat doing that committment and work, it is this project and *all* its committers, so there are more hands than possible seen when drafting the plan).

 

I don't see where you get the one year from. You can release as often as you like and can manage... 

 

My counterproposal is: Reverting your changes in the WIKI and then adjust *only* the version numbers. Hence, keep the original plan but just with a different name.

 

What do others think?

-Markus

 

Von: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Andy McCright
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2019 20:41
An: jaxrs developer discussions
Betreff: [jaxrs-dev] Updating Roadmap to reflect Jakarta EE 9 Release Plans

 

Hi All,

 

I updated the JAX-RS Roadmap page [1] to reflect the requirements of the Jakarta EE 9 release plan [2].

 

The main changes are:

(1) Updating the major versions (i.e. from 2.2 to 3.0) - as I understand it, this is a hard requirement for EE 9.

(2) Removing "additional content" from the 3.0 (previously 2.2) release. As I understand it, the EE9 release plan requires no changes to the EE 8 APIs other than the package rename (and pruning, where relevant).  I interpret this as we will need to remove the SE bootstrap feature from the 3.0 release, so I put that into the 3.1 release.

 

Please review these changes - feedback appreciated.

 

Thanks, Andy

 

_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev


 

--

Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Eclipse Foundation: The Platform for Open Innovation and Collaboration

_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev

Back to the top