[jsr342-experts] Re: Minimal profile ?

From: Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:33:38 +0200

Actually the systems mentioned are on EE5 level, JRules might be a bit
behind, pretty much where ILOG left it.
And from what JSR 331 Spec Lead Jacob Feldman heard, there doesn't seem to
be much going on there, it sounded to him as if IBM wanted to donate large
portions to Open Source.
Maybe that way using not only JSRs like 331 some of these components
behaved better, too;-)
It won't help much if you have a great container, but older or badly
written apps don't behave accordingly.

Sure, if a minimal profile had no JSF or JPA, each app could bring its own,
but at the price of giant archives and no reusability of common frameworks.
Am 24.07.2012 19:19 schrieb "Jim Knutson" <knutson_at_us.ibm.com>:

> Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote on 06/29/2012
> 04:34:31 PM:
> > I've spent the week migrating a JSF 1.2 application running on
> > Tomcat to JBoss 6 EAP (which comes with JSF 2.0). Now I'm trying to
> > run an application with JAX-RS 2.0 running on GlassFish 3.x (which
> > comes with JAX-RS 1.1). On both cases, it's hell.
> That's one of the reasons I didn't want JSF as part of the Web Profile,
> but it's
> too late now.
> I still say that a minimal profile with just the servlet container is not
> a
> platform. There's no value in defining a platform that has next to nothing
> in it. You basically can't count on anything being there and you are
> forced
> into building your own server or bundling everything in the app.
> The only reasonable chance we have to solve the integration problem has
> been
> to include modularity in the architecture. I've been saying this for
> several
> releases now and we are yet again putting it off.
> I'm not interested in a minimal profile hack.
> Thanks,
> Jim Knutson
> WebSphere Java EE Architect