jsr342-experts@javaee-spec.java.net

[jsr342-experts] Re: pruning

From: liming <liming_at_tongtech.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:53:10 +0800

Hi Linda,
The fact is none of my users developed applications used any of the
"Proposed Optional" list, or required them in last five years. But we had to
support them only to pass the full CTS.
IMHO, remove them all.

Cheers

--Li Ming

----- -----
: Linda DeMichiel [mailto:linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com]
: 2011-7-16- 8:51
: jsr342-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
: [jsr342-experts] pruning


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