Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:42:10 +0200
Dear Experts,
This equally affects EE, and you know there are a few hidden redundancies
still left in EE6/7 we'd hope to eliminate as soon as we can. So I'll share
with you the highlight to JSR 308, though it may not have a direct impact
on EE7, crucial EE JSRs like BeanValidation will be affected, if e.g. a set
of default annotations based on 308 get created in a redundant way and
worse are called things like @NonNull as opposed to @NotNull now, just to
confuse people a bit more[?]
Not to mention, some of the BeanValidation annotations are going to be
affected by JSR 310 should that be in time for Java 8 and it got the "All
clear" by Oracle Legal despite different, non-compliant committer
agreements the Spec Lead insisted on there (if it doesn't make it into Java
8, it may only be for legal or licensing reasons there[?])
Regards,
Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmx.net><https://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/g.fcgi/mail/new?CUSTOMERNO=15348725&t=de227903925.1342603333.7fb852ac&to=%26lt%3Bwerner.keil%40gmx.net>
schrieb:
Mark,
Depending on whether JSR 308 (Type Annotations) really makes it into Java
SE 8, we already mentioned the need either for a "Commons Annotations 2.0"
follow-up to JSR 250 or at least a JEP or a few within OpenJDK, should that
be a preferred way to ensure, some parts are in the platform on time.
The JSR 308 Spec Leads and EG insist, none of this is "Their Beer", maybe
they only are responsible on a compiler level, but for the platform to
succeed, a minimum level of consistency and sanity must exist. Some of us
didn't do this without good reason between JSR 330 and what's now CDI,
where originally they had overlapping and redundant annotations planned in
prior drafts.
At least between the "PoC" checkers for 308 with various flavours in itself
and especially BeanValidation such issue exists, too. One has a
@NonNull<https://www.gmxattachments.net/de/cgi/g.fcgi/mail/print/fullhtml?mid=babgecg.1342603430.23317.aqold6vtxb.74&uid=NDIyM5AlSDU3NcIA2zI3SQwzcbNpGkvw&partUid=NDIyM5AlSDU3NcIA2zI3SQwzcbNpGkvw>
annotation,
the other calls it
@NotNull.<https://www.gmxattachments.net/de/cgi/g.fcgi/mail/print/fullhtml?mid=babgecg.1342603430.23317.aqold6vtxb.74&uid=NDIyM5AlSDU3NcIA2zI3SQwzcbNpGkvw&partUid=NDIyM5AlSDU3NcIA2zI3SQwzcbNpGkvw>
We had similar problems in the Enterprise Platform that have never been
fully resolved. Let's not put further waste into both even if true
Modularity has to wait for another version.
Cheers,
Werner
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark reached out to EC with an idea of a kind of "Profiles" in SE8
> instead. Given let's say the built in JavaFX is of little value inside most
> servers, not to mention limited recources in a Cloud instance, I dropped a
> few thoughts like a "Headless" profile for some situations, allowing with
> the right parts also Embedded or other UI frameworks like SWT, etc.
> On EE side, there could be extensions to that, while most would rely on at
> least Servlets, though some parts like CDI tend to be used with little or
> no EE parts around it, too sonetimes;-)
>
> Let's see, what other EC members say, many probably have to go through
> their Legal, R&D and plenty of other departments before a qualified
> response is heard:-D
>
> Werner
> Am 17.07.2012 21:31 schrieb "Jeff Genender" <jgenender_at_savoirtech.com>:
>
> Yes... inquiring minds want to know. I read that and my heart dropped...
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Markus Eisele wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> > Hi Linda/Bill,
>> >
>> > seems as if the big news today also has some influence on Java EE 7/8.
>> > http://mreinhold.org/blog/late-for-the-train
>> >
>> > With the current plan we can't work on any further modularization
>> > based on Jigsaw before 2015.
>> >
>> > I would love to have a brief idea about what this mean to the plans
>> > for EE in general.
>> > Remembering some discussions about logging and modularization efforts
>> > planed to address with the JDK base in place.
>> > I still believe that the PaaS focus of EE 7 also lacks a lot of
>> > thoughts around this topic and I am wondering how everybody
>> > else sees this.
>> >
>> > Thanks for some clarifications,
>> > - Markus
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 17 July 2012 08:50, Markus Eisele <myfear_at_web.de> wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I don't know if we finally reached an agreement on the "how" here but
>> >> I would love to open this up again a little more.
>> >> With respect to a blog post by Craig Ringer this morning and also
>> >> Antonio's thoughts from mid 2011.
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://blog.ringerc.id.au/2012/07/java-ee-7-needs-improvements-in-app.html
>> >>
>> http://antoniogoncalves.org/2011/06/10/debate-and-what-about-configuration-in-java-ee-7/
>> >>
>> >> The configuration topic pops up more frequently and with the SSL
>> >> configuration we just hit the same topic ourselves.
>> >>
>> >> Is there any chance to pull the Java EE configuration into the EE 7
>> scope?
>> >>
>> >> What's your opinion on "deployment overlays" as outlined by the JBoss
>> >> AS7 team in this pull request:
>> >> https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/2663 ?
>> >>
>> >> I would actually love to see both aspects:
>> >> - A general configuration approach as outlined by Craig (Preferences
>> >> API constrained for Java EE applications) and a
>> >> - standardized deployment overlay mechanism
>> >>
>> >> in EE 7.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> - M
>>
>>
-- Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member | Eclipse UOMo Lead Twitter @wernerkeil | #Java_Social | #EclipseUOMo | #OpenDDR Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil * Chip-to-Cloud Security Forum: September 19 2012, Nice, French Riviera. Werner Keil, JCP Executive Committee, JSR-321 EG Member will present "Trusted Computing API for Java™" * Eclipse Day Delft: September 27 2012, Delft, Netherlands. Werner Keil, Eclipse Committer, UOMo Lead, Mærsk Build Manager will present "Triple-E class Continuous Delivery with Hudson, Maven and Mylyn"
