[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Servlet Profile (was JAX-RS and the Web Profile)

From: Jeff Genender <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:09:04 -0700

Yes... I agree with Werner in this instance. As modularity becomes a central component of the JVM and with the breadth of frameworks and HTTP based APIs, picking and choosing what goes in will become the norm. But for this pass, I guess we can keep it status quo.

However... with that said... we all really should be thinking about the entire upgrade compatibility issues and make a break to switch the paradigm at some point in the future. Its ok to start thinking about deprecating and not always having to be backward compatible with everything. Otherwise we will always have our boots stuck in the mud because we are holding on to older tech. Just my .02.

On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Werner Keil wrote:

> I guess the "at this time" is what I'd be able to agree and live with, too.
> However, Java 8 with modularity as proposed and drafted so far will mean, there have to be much finer grained "Profiles" not just for EE.
> And compatibility shall be driven by a proper dependency tree, but not impose overhead of useless modules.
> If somebody won't use JSP, but JSF or Spring instead, they shall not carry the burden of JSP, unless they use a module or library dependent on it.
> And if they just use SOAP, JAX-RS may also not be required and vice versa.
> Werner
> Am 23.02.2012 16:17 schrieb "Jason T. Greene" <>:
> I am also against a slimmer web profile at this time. I really think we got it right. If you compare with the bottom proposal the only difference is removing JSF, EJB Lite and JPA. All of these can be easily added by a pure servlet vendor (ok easy is a bit of an exaggeration). Both Tomcat (with TomEE) and Resin seemed to have no problem adjusting. I bet Jetty eventually will offer a web profile set as well.
> That said I do agree that EE has a significant gap in view technology (JSF and JSP while entrenched are no longer state of the art), I think the correct solution is to develop a new standard (or set of standards) first, and then revisit EE (A view layer that favors client side state and javascript generation for example)
> On 2/23/12 8:50 AM, wrote:
> -1. We already talked about this and it is a bad idea that weakens
> compatibility (the whole point of the JCP/Java EE).
> Feb 23, 2012 06:22:13 AM, wrote:
> ===========================================
> I remember back on the Java EE 6 expert group we talked about having
> a "minimal profile" with only Servlet& JSPs (I remember Rod Johnson
> being interested in such profile, Roberto Chinicci even wrote a few
> blog posts about it :
> I have a few concerns with this. First of all, JSPs are not evolving : it is a poor UI framework (no Ajax and so on) and is not a templating fwk either. Second, except if I'm missed something on Servlet 3.1, we don't have a simple controller to build MVC web apps. With just Servlets and JSPs, we miss the controller. I remember that the JAX-RS 1.1 and Servlet 3.0 expert group talked about it, but I think nothing happened.
> For me, such a minimal profile would make sense with a proper
> templating framework, Expression Language and a simple servlet
> controller ( la Spring MVC). My 2 cents Antonio
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:03, Jason Porter wrote: I'd also like to
> suggest a simple Servlet or Basic profile. It would include servlets,
> JSP, EL, CDI and JAX-RS. Essentially tomcat / jetty with CDI and
> JAX-RS integrated. This would give a very powerful programming
> environment (namely CDI and JAX-RS) as a strong base and also allow
> our friends developing tomcat and jetty to join in and be a Java EE
> compliant server! Oh, and JSF would then run purely in a Java EE
> environment, no more "pseudo EE container" aka Servlet container.
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat