[javaee-spec users] [jsr366-experts] Re: Java EE 8 Early Draft 2 specification documents

From: Linda DeMichiel <>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 15:56:15 -0800

Hi Kevin,

On 11/28/16 3:32 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Hi Linda,
> Took a quick review of the Early Draft 2 and have a few quick questions...
> o JavaMail 1.6? This wasn't part of your presentation at JavaOne. Is
> it just standard practice to update JavaMail with every Java EE release?

Not standard practice. However, I know that Bill has a couple of
minor updates that he was planning to make in the Java EE 8 timeframe.

> o Shouldn't we be updating WebSocket to 1.1? It's still listed as
> WebSocket 1.0 in the spec.

Yes. That is a bug. I've passed the documents on to the JCP, so
if I can't make the change in this draft, I'll fix this in the next.

> o I'm assuming that updating Common Annotations to 1.3 is also a
> required update for Java EE 8?


> o I'm surprised to see JPA 2.2 in Java EE 8. I know it's been
> discussed on both this forum and the jpa forum, but I didn't think there
> was enough interest to sign up for this effort.

I think there is certainly interest in this. We were intending for this
to be an MR. However, the speclead has been diverted lately.

> o What about the Interceptors spec? You had proposed changes to that
> spec earlier this year. Shouldn't we include that as Interceptors 1.3 MR?

I plan to resume work on this. This would be a version 1.2 rev A
however, rather than a new "dot" MR release, as I am not planning on
any functional changes, just cleanup and clarifications.

> o I don't see mention of the two new spec proposals for Health Check
> and Config API. I don't even think they have JSR numbers yet, but we
> should probably include them in the platform spec.

Given that these JSRs haven't yet been filed, I don't think they
should be included at this point.

> o Similar comment for Security 1.0 (JSR 375). Shouldn't we include
> that in the platform spec?

I'm glad to see all the recent progress on Security 1.0. Once it gets
a bit further along we'll have the EG discussion about including it in
Java EE 8.

> These were my initial findings. I realize this is just an early draft,
> but I'm thinking we should start including the main parts of the Java EE
> 8 plan. Thanks, Linda!

As Java EE 8 makes further progress, we'll continue with the updates.

Thank you for all the feedback!



> ---------------------------------------------------
> Kevin Sutter
> STSM, Java EE and Java Persistence API (JPA) architect
> e-mail: Twitter: @kwsutter
> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
> LinkedIn:
> From: Linda DeMichiel <>
> To:
> Date: 11/28/2016 12:24 PM
> Subject: [jsr366-experts] Java EE 8 Early Draft 2 specification documents
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I've just uploaded to our project documents area
> ( the drafts of the
> Java EE 8 Platform and Web Profile specification documents that we
> plan to submit to the JCP for Early Draft 2 review.
> Changes to the specs are listed in the "Revision History" sections of
> the documents. Changebars in the documents reflect changes since the
> Early Draft 1.
> Changes include the move of CORBA-related technologies such as IIOP to
> "Proposed Optional" status, as we decided last December. Changes also
> reflect Oracle's proposal to withdraw the JMS 2.1 JSR, and instead
> include JMS 2.0 in Java EE 8. We have also removed MVC 1.0 from the
> list of required technologies, given Oracle's proposed plan to not
> continue with this JSR in Java EE 8. Please see also
> thanks,
> -Linda