Exactly, that's part of the decision to be made. Maybe there's not
enough value in that? Not to mention, it would still be very hard
to do.
Antonio Goncalves wrote on 09/28/11 01:01:
> Bill, when you say "deliver EE 7 sooner" that means before Q4 2012 ? It's only
> 15 months away. What would be the motivation to deliver earlier ?
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 08:43, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com
> <mailto:bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> We're putting off modularity to EE 8. We really have no choice in that
> if we want to be aligned with the module system in SE 8.
>
> The possibility to consider is whether putting off other things as well
> would allow us to deliver EE 7 sooner, and if so would that be a good thing?
>
> Jeff Genender wrote on 09/27/2011 04:40 PM:
>
> Bill,
>
> Regarding your original email, I wasn't sure if you were referring to
> putting off modularity to EE8 or you meant putting off other things?
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>
> Jason T. Greene wrote on 9/27/11 1:51 PM:
>
> On 9/27/11 2:56 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> We have considered several
> alternatives moving forward, including delivering Java EE 7
> with the
> remaining content as planned, or splitting the Java EE 7
> release into
> smaller Java EE 7 and Java EE 8 releases, with only a small
> time gap
> between those two releases, and with Java EE 8 containing only
> modularity support and any remaining original content from
> Java EE 7.
>
> I know this will be a disappointment to all of us, but I'm
> sure you'll
> understand the constraints and agree that alignment with the
> upcoming
> Java SE module system is essential.
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I definitely think this was the right decision to make, and
> relay Red Hat's
> support. Due to the massive impact modularity will have I think
> it's more
> important that EE and SE be cleanly aligned, then for us to be
> early.
>
>
> Thanks for the support.
>
> The idea you mention above of fast tracking EE7 is interesting.
> Does this imply
> revisiting the main goals? We would love to see some more work
> on unifying the
> specs (e.g. common services like tx, sec, and so on), and that
> seems more
> achievable in a short time frame.
>
>
> At this point we're just collecting input.
>
> It sounds like you're suggesting that we scale back some (unnamed) goals
> and doing more work to unify specs. We're still considering the
> resource
> impact of the various possibilities but at this point we think we'd
> likely
> have to remove more than just modularity to make a significant
> difference
> in the EE 7 schedule.
>
> Still, I'm interested in what additional spec unification you'd like
> to see.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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>