[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: new JSRs for inclusion in the Java EE Platform

From: Werner Keil <>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:00:53 +0200

I agree, especially for smaller server vendors, the license fee for
Websockets could be kind of an issue, so if they want to spare either
themselves or their customers that (or some) it makes sense to keep that
optional, too.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Jim Knutson <> wrote:

> Werner Keil <> wrote on 09/11/2012 08:00:43 AM:
> > +1
> >
> > Batch makes little sense for Web.
> > While Web Socket may put license issues on certain vendors (at least
> > smaller web server companies) the way it helps with async processes
> > certainly makes it valuable for Web Profile, if you want to avoid
> > fully fledged Enterprise alternatives like EJB or JMS for that.
> >
> > Werner
> Note, there's a difference between being able to provide web sockets
> and being required to provide web sockets. Is web sockets really
> something that is required by most (80% case) app deployments?
> There's nothing that prevents someone from adding it to a web
> profile compliant server and yes that certainly helps avoid a
> full EE server, but the web profile is not intended to be the new
> lite EE platform. At least I didn't think so.
> Thanks,
> Jim Knutson
> WebSphere Java EE Architect