I'm in favour of pruning all the mentioned features.
As for "new proposed optional features", I have a few I will recommend later
in the process.
Antonio
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 07:25, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
Blog <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> |
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>| Paris
JUG <http://www.parisjug.org>