[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Minimal profile ?

From: Markus Eisele <>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:17:10 +0200


> I am very supportive of better modularity/pluggability (even in
> case of swapping/upgrading Java EE API implementations on a given Java EE
> platform -- e.g. swapping Weld for OWB on GlassFish).

Same here! That would be a very valuable place to look for
improvements as early as possible.
Especially with the "cloud topic" in mind this could be the switch to push.
Imagine the issues a PaaS provider would run into:

1) swapping/upgrading RIs due to security issues
2) providing own/patched RIs as services

I think we could come up with even more ;)

There is still the jigsaw "problem".
If I only look at the (hopefully) latest system requirements document from Mark
it's absolutely possible that every single minute spent with EE 7 will
be worth exactly nothing.

@Linda/Bill ?


> On 7/2/2012 12:45 AM, Markus Eisele wrote:
>> Hi Antonio,
>> here are my two cents:
>> The profile idea was good. And I still support it. Even if the reason
>> for it simply was to lower the barriers for web-container centered
>> products to earn a Java EE certification.
>> It would be nice to have more specialized profiles around but I don't
>> believe a new "Servlet/Minimal profil" would be of any help with your
>> problem.
>> With all the core modules being present in the server classpath you
>> end up having trouble replacing them. It ever has been like this.
>> I have similar experiences while switching from one vendor to the
>> other in general. Even upgrading containers for a single product is a
>> pain most of the time.
>> Having a minimal/lightweight whatever-you-call-it profile in place
>> solves this but you would end up with your own DIY app-server. That's
>> not the way I would like to see Java EE moving. This approach could
>> even be harder in terms of migration in the future. And it sets a
>> comparably high barrier for beginners which need to know which
>> technologies to pick.
>> Instead what I would love to see is, that we move forward with some
>> thoughts regarding modularization and version number ranges for
>> dependent technologies.
>> All the modularization work that is done for Java 8 might be a good
>> way to facilitate this with later EE versions.
>> To me it doesn't seem to be a good fit investing into this before Java
>> 8 (and so Java EE 8) and I also don't support having a new minimal
>> profile.
>> -M
>> On 29 June 2012 23:34, Antonio Goncalves <>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Four years ago, when we were building Java EE 6, we had this idea of a
>>> minimal profile that Roberto blogged about
>>> (
>>> The idea was to standardise "Tomcat-like" application servers with a
>>> minimal
>>> profile containing Servlets and JSPs. So we would have had this "minimal"
>>> profile, the web profile and the full one. We mostly voted no on this
>>> minimal profile, and I was one of them.
>>> 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. This would be easier if I could have used a JBoss
>>> 6
>>> EAP Minimal Profile (or a GlassFish 3.x Minimal Profile) and bundle my
>>> own
>>> external jars like I do with Tomcat. If we want applications to migrate
>>> to
>>> Java EE application servers, one ease of use would be to have just a
>>> servlet
>>> container. And it will give a nice migration plan to application : e.g.
>>> "migrate from Tomcat to JBoss Minimal profile, and then when you are used
>>> to
>>> your new application server, move to a Web Profile and start adding other
>>> Java EE modules".
>>> I think having a new "Minimal Profile" (a better name would be a "Servlet
>>> Profile" with just Servlets, EL and JSP) would increase modularity in
>>> application servers and help applications to migrate to Java EE.
>>> What would you think of introducing a new profile in Java EE 7 ?
>>> Antonio
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG -
>> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2437/5105 - Release Date: 07/01/12