[jsr342-experts] Re: pruning

From: Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:04:47 +0530


Sounds good to me. As mentioned earlier, even if Java EE 7 can't use all of
SE8 proposed Modularity, there should be a way to split parts of the "Java
EE Product" and mark some of them as optional, whether those actual products
use OSGi (most including Glassfish do[?]) or another concrete way to
dynamically load those parts.


On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Deepak Anupalli <deepak_at_pramati.com> wrote:

> The pruned list is fine.
> Is there any plan to make some of the technologies in the "Full Java EE
> Product" as optional?
> -Deepak
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda DeMichiel" <
> linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 6:21 AM
> Subject: [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":
>> 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

(image/gif attachment: 329.gif)