If we came to a working *modularization *even before SE and EE8, I'd also
consider pruning (or making "optional") more of those
--
Werner Keil | UOMo Lead | Eclipse Foundation | Agile Coach, Principal
Consultant | *emergn* limited
590 Madison Avenue. New York. NY 10022 | 68 Lombard Street. London EC3V 9LJ
UK
US Toll Free: +1-877.964.1981 | Worldwide Toll Free: +800.225.53482
Twitter @wernerkeil | Skype: werner.keil | www.emergn.com | Reshaping IT
* Java 7 Launch: July 17 2011, Bangalore, India. Werner Keil, Executive
Committee Member (SE/EE), will represent "Java Community Process"
* JavaOne: October 2-6 2011, San Francisco, USA. Werner Keil, Agile
Coach, Principal
Consultant, will co-present "JSR 321: Trusted Java API"
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene_at_redhat.com>wrote:
> Prune them ALL (I wish JSR-77 was on there as well...)
>
>
> On 7/15/11 7:51 PM, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
>
>>
>> In Java EE 6 we introduced into the Java EE platform a notion of
>> "pruning" -- following a process defined by the Java SE platform --
>> whereby a technology is identified in one release of the platform as a
>> potential candidate for being made optional in a subsequent release.
>> The details for this are described in section EE.6.1.3 of the Java EE
>> 6 Platform specification.
>>
>> In Java EE 6 we identified the following technologies as candidates
>> for pruning, marking them as "Proposed Optional":
>> JAX-RPC
>> JAXR
>> Java EE Deployment
>> EJB Entity Beans
>>
>> The EJB Expert Group has already been strongly supportive of the
>> proposal to "prune" (i.e., to designate as Optional) EJB Entity Beans,
>> and the specification lead has produced a separate specification
>> document, "EJB Optional Features" to reflect this expectation.
>>
>> The decision to prune a feature from the platform, retain it as a
>> required feature, or to leave it in the "Proposed Optional" state,
>> however, is a decision of the Platform Expert Group.
>>
>> To avoid any backtracking on the part of EJB 3.2, I would prefer to
>> decide at this point which of the Proposed Optional technologies
>> listed above should be designated as Optional as of Java EE 7. We
>> would prefer that all of you express a position on this so that we can
>> best evaluate the extent to which there is consensus.
>>
>> I should also mention that some of the expert groups have been
>> discussing potential candidates for marking "Proposed Optional" in
>> Java EE 7, but are still in the early stages of gathering information.
>> I suggest we defer any decisions regarding new proposed optional
>> features until later in the process, but recommendations are of course
>> welcome at any stage.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> -Linda
>>
>
>
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>