It's sad, RIP JAX-WS (last update December 2011)
Both JAX-WS and JAX-RS are still relevant today. It's a pity that the
current specification leads (Jitendra Kotamraju?, Martin Grebac?) simply
ignore the 223 open JIRA issues from the community (
https://java.net/jira/browse/JAX_WS) and choose not to select even a few
for a minor 2.3 maintenance update. Or at the least give the guarantee that
JAX-WS will still integrate nicely with updated and new specs in JavaEE 8
(CDI 2.0, health, configuration). If not, vendors will again make their own
decisions, and we'll end up with the worst compatibility experience ever.
JMS, you're digging your grave too. Frameworks that don't evolve,
eventually die.
Watch out JavaEE
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:48 AM Alexander Salvanos <salvanos_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Adam, hi everybody,
>
> as far as I can tell, the currently offered positions in jee projects
> continue to strongly require jax-ws.
>
> Best,
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 01.12.2016 07:43, Adam Bien wrote:
> > About pruning: JMS removal is unfortunate. IMO SOAP (jaxws) is a valid
> candidate for pruning. The spec was not updated for years anyway. Any
> thoughts?
> >
> > —adam
> >> On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:42, users-request_at_javaee-spec.java.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Table of contents:
> >>
> >> 1. [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1
> and Java EE 8 - reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> >> 2. [javaee-spec users] Re: [jpa-spec users] Re: Triggering section
> 3.2.2.4 (Unresponsive or inactive spec lead) for JPA - reza_rahman <
> reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> >> 3. [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1
> and Java EE 8 - Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> >> 4. [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1
> and Java EE 8 - "Kevin Sutter" <sutter_at_us.ibm.com>
> >> 5. [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1
> and Java EE 8 - vaquar khan <vaquar.khan_at_gmail.com>
> >> 6. [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1
> and Java EE 8 - reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> >> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS
> 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >> Date: 30 November 2016 at 14:24:05 GMT+1
> >> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net
> >> Cc: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >> Reply-To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>
> >>
> >> This is truly unfortunate, but I can't say I didn't suspect it will
> happen. For those interested, I propose we move the major functionality
> slated for JMS 2.1 forward through an open source community project that
> can be standardized as soon as possible.
> >>
> >> I will post the details on this shortly. Support from major vendors
> including Oracle for the comminity project would be most welcome.
> >>
> >> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
> >> Date: 11/29/16 4:28 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net, jsr368-experts_at_jms-spec.java.net
> >> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >>
> >> Oracle has now asked me to announce that it will withdraw JSR 368 (JMS
> 2.1), in accordance with the proposed Java EE 8
> >> roadmap presented by Anil Gaur and others at JavaOne 2016 and the
> results of the community survey.
> >>
> >> This is also announced here:
> >> https://blogs.oracle.com/theaquarium/entry/a_quick_update_on_java
> >>
> >> Note that although JSR 368 is ending, the email group
> users_at_jms-spec.java.net continues for general discussion of the
> >> JMS specification. If you have general questions about the plans for
> Java EE 8 please use users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>
> >> Nigel
> >> (JSR 368 specification lead)
> >>
> >> On 05/10/2016 09:47, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> >>> As everyone will know, several Oracle-led JSRs (including JMS 2.1)
> have made little progress this year due to the spec
> >>> leads being diverted partly or wholly to work on other things.
> >>>
> >>> At JavaOne last month Linda DeMichel, Java EE joint spec lead, gave an
> update on progress and plans for Java EE 8.
> >>> You can watch the whole presentation online here:
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th9faGLhQoM
> >>> or you can simply review the slides here:
> >>> https://java.net/downloads/javaee-spec/JavaEE8Update.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Linda's presentation proposes a shift in focus for Java EE, to reflect
> recent developments in the industry, which she
> >>> summarised as a "focus on deployment into the cloud", a "focus on
> microservices", and an "emphasis on more rapid
> >>> evolution of applications".
> >>>
> >>> In order to address these changes, and modernise Java EE 8 for "cloud
> and microservices", she proposed a two-fold approach:
> >>>
> >>> * Adjust the plan for Java EE 8
> >>> * Create a plan for, and start work on, Java EE 9
> >>>
> >>> Java EE 8 and JMS 2.1
> >>> ---------------------
> >>>
> >>> Linda confirmed the plan to complete Java EE 8 in 2017 as originally
> proposed, but with a number of changes to its
> >>> content. These are listed in slides 27 and 28 of her slide deck.
> >>>
> >>> The Java EE 8 JSR and most of its constituent JSRs would continue as
> originally planned. She proposed that two new
> >>> constituent JSRs be added, for health checking and for configuration.
> >>>
> >>> And she proposed to drop three of the existing constituent JSRs: MVC
> 1.0 (JSR 371), Management 2.0 (JSR 373) ... and JMS
> >>> 2.1 (JSR 368).
> >>>
> >>> The reason for dropping JMS 2.1 was that JMS was "no longer very
> relevant in cloud". JMS would continue to be part of
> >>> Java EE 8, but at its current version JMS 2.0 rather than at a new
> version JMS 2.1.
> >>>
> >>> Java EE 9
> >>> ---------
> >>>
> >>> Linda went on to propose a plan for Java EE 9, which would focus more
> directly on the new requirements, with work
> >>> running in parallel with Java EE 8 and with a release date of 2019.
> Please see Linda's slides for more details, and if
> >>> you'd like to find out more about Java EE 9 I would recommend watching
> a couple of JavaOne presentations:
> >>>
> >>> Rajiv Mordani, Josh Dorr, Dhiraj Mutreja -- Enterprise Java for the
> Cloud
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7miysQP7Dg
> >>> Josh Dorr, Joe Di Pol, Rajiv Mordani -- Portable Cloud Applications
> with Java EE
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqVSf5v37s
> >>> There are two presentations because there was too much material to fit
> into a single presentation. They include some
> >>> proposals for a new "eventing" JSR in Java EE 9 which I suspect will
> be of particular interest.
> >>>
> >>> Your views
> >>> ----------
> >>>
> >>> Your views on all of these proposals are invited.
> >>>
> >>> You can make comments on proposal to drop JMS 2.1 from Java EE 8 here (
> users_at_jms-spec.java.net) or you can reach a wider
> >>> audience by sending them to the Java EE users mailing list (
> users_at_javaee-spec.java.net). You can sign up to the latter
> >>> at https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists
> >>>
> >>> Comments on the proposals for Java EE 9 (including the "eventing"
> proposals) should be made to the Java EE users mailing
> >>> list.
> >>>
> >>> In addition, the Java EE spec leads have launched a new Java EE
> community survey. Please do take part and give your
> >>> views on the future of Java EE. This is at http://glassfish.org/survey
> . The survey closes on 21 Oct 2016. This will be
> >>> followed by a second survey that allows people to prioritise the top
> items from the first survey.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nigel
> >>> (JMS 2.1 spec lead)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> >> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jpa-spec users] Re: Triggering
> section 3.2.2.4 (Unresponsive or inactive spec lead) for JPA
> >> Date: 30 November 2016 at 14:31:16 GMT+1
> >> To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >> Reply-To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>
> >>
> >> Looping in the Java EE 8 JSR folks on this. If this worries you, please
> voice your views?
> >>
> >> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> >> Date: 11/30/16 8:27 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: users_at_jpa-spec.java.net
> >> Subject: [jpa-spec users] Re: Triggering section 3.2.2.4 (Unresponsive
> or inactive spec lead) for JPA
> >>
> >> While I am not an EG member, I wholly support this effort. I hope EG
> members - especially major JPA vendors - will step up. JPA is a very
> important specification to the community and industry.
> >>
> >> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Oliver Gierke <ogierke_at_pivotal.io>
> >> Date: 11/29/16 5:30 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: users_at_jpa-spec.java.net
> >> Subject: [jpa-spec users] Triggering section 3.2.2.4 (Unresponsive or
> inactive spec lead) for JPA
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> another month has passed [0] with out any feedback to previous requests
> about the plans for what JPA in JavaEE 8 is supposed to look like. We've
> seen another document released [1], yet another community survey finished
> [2], but no information of the spec lead since June 2015. I've already
> documented the sad state of non-responses in a previous email but let me
> copy that here for reference.
> >>
> >> Repeated requests about the state of JPA but no response form the
> specification lead:
> >>
> >> - June, 3rd 2015 (!) -
> https://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/lists/jsr338-experts/archive/2015-06/message/0
> >> - December, 3rd 2015 -
> https://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/lists/jsr338-experts/archive/2015-12/message/0
> >> - April, 29th 2016 -
> https://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/lists/jsr338-experts/archive/2016-04/message/0
> >>
> >> Same picture on the users list:
> >>
> >> - September 7th, 2016 -
> https://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/lists/users/archive/2016-09/message/0
> >>
> >> After another month has passed now, I'd like to trigger the process for
> section 3.2.2.4 [3] of the JCP Process document. We need two other members
> of the EG, to officially request the PMO to bring that topic up with Oracle
> and investigate the state of affairs. That might lead to replacement of the
> spec lead but doesn't have to. So far, I've experienced Lukas to do a great
> job, *when he actually had the time to do so*.
> >>
> >> If two other members of the EG stepped up to back that request, I'd
> forward this email to the JCP PMO and let them take it from there.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Ollie
> >>
> >> [0]
> https://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/lists/users/archive/2016-10/message/2
> >> [1]
> https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/jsr366-experts/archive/2016-11/message/0
> >> [2] https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/2956644/d583322208d1
> >> [3] https://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#3.2.2.4
> >>
> >> --
> >> /**
> >> * @author Oliver Gierke - Senior Software Engineer
> >> *
> >> * @param email ogierke_at_pivotal.io
> >> * @param phone +49-151-50465477 <+49%201515%200465477>
> >> * @param fax +49-351-418898439 <+49%20351%20418898439>
> >> * @param skype einsdreizehn
> >> * @see http://www.olivergierke.de
> >> */
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> >> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS
> 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >> Date: 30 November 2016 at 14:59:29 GMT+1
> >> To: jms-spec users <users_at_jms-spec.java.net>
> >> Cc: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net, reza_rahman_at_lycos.com
> >> Reply-To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>
> >>
> >> @Reza (and everybody else), you should follow this discussion about
> >> messaging on the micro profile:
> >>
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/microprofile/slv8lk_1smU/HFcdlhWiAwAJ
> >>
> >> I was trying to help on making JMS 2 better, but one of the Pitfalls
> >> of JMS 2, was that it would need to be fully compatible with JMS 1.1.
> >> (In my book fully compatible would mean 1.3, 1.4.. not a 2.0), so a
> >> lot of weight from JMS1 which was designed in a different era (10+
> >> years ago is already a long time).
> >>
> >> I think something new is needed anyways.. Something simpler that users
> >> can use and have the complexity embedded at the implementation. An API
> >> that is modern, simple and cheap to be implemented.
> >>
> >> I really think that the message API on the Microprofile could become
> >> something great...and that is already a good gathering around
> >> messaging folks on an open source community.
> >>
> >> the discussion is open and everyone is welcome.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> wrote:
> >>> This is truly unfortunate, but I can't say I didn't suspect it will
> happen.
> >>> For those interested, I propose we move the major functionality slated
> for
> >>> JMS 2.1 forward through an open source community project that can be
> >>> standardized as soon as possible.
> >>>
> >>> I will post the details on this shortly. Support from major vendors
> >>> including Oracle for the comminity project would be most welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original message --------
> >>> From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
> >>> Date: 11/29/16 4:28 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net, jsr368-experts_at_jms-spec.java.net
> >>> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >>>
> >>> Oracle has now asked me to announce that it will withdraw JSR 368 (JMS
> 2.1),
> >>> in accordance with the proposed Java EE 8
> >>> roadmap presented by Anil Gaur and others at JavaOne 2016 and the
> results of
> >>> the community survey.
> >>>
> >>> This is also announced here:
> >>> https://blogs.oracle.com/theaquarium/entry/a_quick_update_on_java
> >>>
> >>> Note that although JSR 368 is ending, the email group
> >>> users_at_jms-spec.java.net continues for general discussion of the
> >>> JMS specification. If you have general questions about the plans for
> Java EE
> >>> 8 please use users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>>
> >>> Nigel
> >>> (JSR 368 specification lead)
> >>>
> >>> On 05/10/2016 09:47, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> >>>> As everyone will know, several Oracle-led JSRs (including JMS 2.1)
> have
> >>>> made little progress this year due to the spec
> >>>> leads being diverted partly or wholly to work on other things.
> >>>>
> >>>> At JavaOne last month Linda DeMichel, Java EE joint spec lead, gave an
> >>>> update on progress and plans for Java EE 8.
> >>>> You can watch the whole presentation online here:
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th9faGLhQoM
> >>>> or you can simply review the slides here:
> >>>> https://java.net/downloads/javaee-spec/JavaEE8Update.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda's presentation proposes a shift in focus for Java EE, to reflect
> >>>> recent developments in the industry, which she
> >>>> summarised as a "focus on deployment into the cloud", a "focus on
> >>>> microservices", and an "emphasis on more rapid
> >>>> evolution of applications".
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to address these changes, and modernise Java EE 8 for "cloud
> and
> >>>> microservices", she proposed a two-fold approach:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Adjust the plan for Java EE 8
> >>>> * Create a plan for, and start work on, Java EE 9
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 8 and JMS 2.1
> >>>> ---------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda confirmed the plan to complete Java EE 8 in 2017 as originally
> >>>> proposed, but with a number of changes to its
> >>>> content. These are listed in slides 27 and 28 of her slide deck.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Java EE 8 JSR and most of its constituent JSRs would continue as
> >>>> originally planned. She proposed that two new
> >>>> constituent JSRs be added, for health checking and for configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> And she proposed to drop three of the existing constituent JSRs: MVC
> 1.0
> >>>> (JSR 371), Management 2.0 (JSR 373) ... and JMS
> >>>> 2.1 (JSR 368).
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason for dropping JMS 2.1 was that JMS was "no longer very
> relevant
> >>>> in cloud". JMS would continue to be part of
> >>>> Java EE 8, but at its current version JMS 2.0 rather than at a new
> version
> >>>> JMS 2.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 9
> >>>> ---------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda went on to propose a plan for Java EE 9, which would focus more
> >>>> directly on the new requirements, with work
> >>>> running in parallel with Java EE 8 and with a release date of 2019.
> Please
> >>>> see Linda's slides for more details, and if
> >>>> you'd like to find out more about Java EE 9 I would recommend
> watching a
> >>>> couple of JavaOne presentations:
> >>>>
> >>>> Rajiv Mordani, Josh Dorr, Dhiraj Mutreja -- Enterprise Java for the
> Cloud
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7miysQP7Dg
> >>>> Josh Dorr, Joe Di Pol, Rajiv Mordani -- Portable Cloud Applications
> with
> >>>> Java EE
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqVSf5v37s
> >>>> There are two presentations because there was too much material to fit
> >>>> into a single presentation. They include some
> >>>> proposals for a new "eventing" JSR in Java EE 9 which I suspect will
> be of
> >>>> particular interest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views
> >>>> ----------
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views on all of these proposals are invited.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can make comments on proposal to drop JMS 2.1 from Java EE 8 here
> >>>> (users_at_jms-spec.java.net) or you can reach a wider
> >>>> audience by sending them to the Java EE users mailing list
> >>>> (users_at_javaee-spec.java.net). You can sign up to the latter
> >>>> at https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments on the proposals for Java EE 9 (including the "eventing"
> >>>> proposals) should be made to the Java EE users mailing
> >>>> list.
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition, the Java EE spec leads have launched a new Java EE
> community
> >>>> survey. Please do take part and give your
> >>>> views on the future of Java EE. This is at
> http://glassfish.org/survey .
> >>>> The survey closes on 21 Oct 2016. This will be
> >>>> followed by a second survey that allows people to prioritise the top
> items
> >>>> from the first survey.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nigel
> >>>> (JMS 2.1 spec lead)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Kevin Sutter" <sutter_at_us.ibm.com>
> >> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS
> 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >> Date: 30 November 2016 at 15:09:35 GMT+1
> >> To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >> Cc: reza_rahman_at_lycos.com, jms-spec users <users_at_jms-spec.java.net>
> >> Reply-To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the plug for MicroProfile (http://microprofile.io/). We
> are constantly looking for new people, new ideas, and new blood. As
> Clebert pointed out, we have at least one Google Group thread dedicated to
> discussing messaging in the microservices arena. Some of this work might
> actually find it's way into Java EE at some point, but let's use this
> MicroProfile initiative to flesh out these messaging requirements. Thanks
> again.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------
> >> Kevin Sutter
> >> STSM, Java EE and Java Persistence API (JPA) architect
> >> e-mail: sutter_at_us.ibm.com Twitter: @kwsutter
> >> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 <(507)%20253-3620> (office)
> >> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> >> To: jms-spec users <users_at_jms-spec.java.net>
> >> Cc: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net, reza_rahman_at_lycos.com
> >> Date: 11/30/2016 08:00 AM
> >> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future
> of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> @Reza (and everybody else), you should follow this discussion about
> >> messaging on the micro profile:
> >>
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/microprofile/slv8lk_1smU/HFcdlhWiAwAJ
> >>
> >> I was trying to help on making JMS 2 better, but one of the Pitfalls
> >> of JMS 2, was that it would need to be fully compatible with JMS 1.1.
> >> (In my book fully compatible would mean 1.3, 1.4.. not a 2.0), so a
> >> lot of weight from JMS1 which was designed in a different era (10+
> >> years ago is already a long time).
> >>
> >> I think something new is needed anyways.. Something simpler that users
> >> can use and have the complexity embedded at the implementation. An API
> >> that is modern, simple and cheap to be implemented.
> >>
> >> I really think that the message API on the Microprofile could become
> >> something great...and that is already a good gathering around
> >> messaging folks on an open source community.
> >>
> >> the discussion is open and everyone is welcome.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> wrote:
> >>> This is truly unfortunate, but I can't say I didn't suspect it will
> happen.
> >>> For those interested, I propose we move the major functionality slated
> for
> >>> JMS 2.1 forward through an open source community project that can be
> >>> standardized as soon as possible.
> >>>
> >>> I will post the details on this shortly. Support from major vendors
> >>> including Oracle for the comminity project would be most welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original message --------
> >>> From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
> >>> Date: 11/29/16 4:28 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net, jsr368-experts_at_jms-spec.java.net
> >>> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >>>
> >>> Oracle has now asked me to announce that it will withdraw JSR 368 (JMS
> 2.1),
> >>> in accordance with the proposed Java EE 8
> >>> roadmap presented by Anil Gaur and others at JavaOne 2016 and the
> results of
> >>> the community survey.
> >>>
> >>> This is also announced here:
> >>> https://blogs.oracle.com/theaquarium/entry/a_quick_update_on_java
> >>>
> >>> Note that although JSR 368 is ending, the email group
> >>> users_at_jms-spec.java.net continues for general discussion of the
> >>> JMS specification. If you have general questions about the plans for
> Java EE
> >>> 8 please use users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>>
> >>> Nigel
> >>> (JSR 368 specification lead)
> >>>
> >>> On 05/10/2016 09:47, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> >>>> As everyone will know, several Oracle-led JSRs (including JMS 2.1)
> have
> >>>> made little progress this year due to the spec
> >>>> leads being diverted partly or wholly to work on other things.
> >>>>
> >>>> At JavaOne last month Linda DeMichel, Java EE joint spec lead, gave an
> >>>> update on progress and plans for Java EE 8.
> >>>> You can watch the whole presentation online here:
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th9faGLhQoM
> >>>> or you can simply review the slides here:
> >>>> https://java.net/downloads/javaee-spec/JavaEE8Update.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda's presentation proposes a shift in focus for Java EE, to reflect
> >>>> recent developments in the industry, which she
> >>>> summarised as a "focus on deployment into the cloud", a "focus on
> >>>> microservices", and an "emphasis on more rapid
> >>>> evolution of applications".
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to address these changes, and modernise Java EE 8 for "cloud
> and
> >>>> microservices", she proposed a two-fold approach:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Adjust the plan for Java EE 8
> >>>> * Create a plan for, and start work on, Java EE 9
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 8 and JMS 2.1
> >>>> ---------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda confirmed the plan to complete Java EE 8 in 2017 as originally
> >>>> proposed, but with a number of changes to its
> >>>> content. These are listed in slides 27 and 28 of her slide deck.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Java EE 8 JSR and most of its constituent JSRs would continue as
> >>>> originally planned. She proposed that two new
> >>>> constituent JSRs be added, for health checking and for configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> And she proposed to drop three of the existing constituent JSRs: MVC
> 1.0
> >>>> (JSR 371), Management 2.0 (JSR 373) ... and JMS
> >>>> 2.1 (JSR 368).
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason for dropping JMS 2.1 was that JMS was "no longer very
> relevant
> >>>> in cloud". JMS would continue to be part of
> >>>> Java EE 8, but at its current version JMS 2.0 rather than at a new
> version
> >>>> JMS 2.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 9
> >>>> ---------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda went on to propose a plan for Java EE 9, which would focus more
> >>>> directly on the new requirements, with work
> >>>> running in parallel with Java EE 8 and with a release date of 2019.
> Please
> >>>> see Linda's slides for more details, and if
> >>>> you'd like to find out more about Java EE 9 I would recommend
> watching a
> >>>> couple of JavaOne presentations:
> >>>>
> >>>> Rajiv Mordani, Josh Dorr, Dhiraj Mutreja -- Enterprise Java for the
> Cloud
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7miysQP7Dg
> >>>> Josh Dorr, Joe Di Pol, Rajiv Mordani -- Portable Cloud Applications
> with
> >>>> Java EE
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqVSf5v37s
> >>>> There are two presentations because there was too much material to fit
> >>>> into a single presentation. They include some
> >>>> proposals for a new "eventing" JSR in Java EE 9 which I suspect will
> be of
> >>>> particular interest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views
> >>>> ----------
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views on all of these proposals are invited.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can make comments on proposal to drop JMS 2.1 from Java EE 8 here
> >>>> (users_at_jms-spec.java.net) or you can reach a wider
> >>>> audience by sending them to the Java EE users mailing list
> >>>> (users_at_javaee-spec.java.net). You can sign up to the latter
> >>>> at https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments on the proposals for Java EE 9 (including the "eventing"
> >>>> proposals) should be made to the Java EE users mailing
> >>>> list.
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition, the Java EE spec leads have launched a new Java EE
> community
> >>>> survey. Please do take part and give your
> >>>> views on the future of Java EE. This is at
> http://glassfish.org/survey.
> >>>> The survey closes on 21 Oct 2016. This will be
> >>>> followed by a second survey that allows people to prioritise the top
> items
> >>>> from the first survey.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nigel
> >>>> (JMS 2.1 spec lead)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: vaquar khan <vaquar.khan_at_gmail.com>
> >> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS
> 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >> Date: 30 November 2016 at 15:39:56 GMT+1
> >> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net
> >> Cc: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net, reza_rahman_at_lycos.com
> >> Reply-To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>
> >>
> >> +1 open source community
> >>
> >> I am sorry if it's sound bad but this is unfortunate that Oracle want
> to kill JMS .
> >>
> >> I totally agreed that we have to move to cloud computing and Micro
> service architecture However JMS has its own place ,organization will take
> long time to move out from JMS.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> vaquar khan
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> @Reza (and everybody else), you should follow this discussion about
> >> messaging on the micro profile:
> >>
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/microprofile/slv8lk_1smU/HFcdlhWiAwAJ
> >>
> >> I was trying to help on making JMS 2 better, but one of the Pitfalls
> >> of JMS 2, was that it would need to be fully compatible with JMS 1.1.
> >> (In my book fully compatible would mean 1.3, 1.4.. not a 2.0), so a
> >> lot of weight from JMS1 which was designed in a different era (10+
> >> years ago is already a long time).
> >>
> >> I think something new is needed anyways.. Something simpler that users
> >> can use and have the complexity embedded at the implementation. An API
> >> that is modern, simple and cheap to be implemented.
> >>
> >> I really think that the message API on the Microprofile could become
> >> something great...and that is already a good gathering around
> >> messaging folks on an open source community.
> >>
> >> the discussion is open and everyone is welcome.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> wrote:
> >>> This is truly unfortunate, but I can't say I didn't suspect it will
> happen.
> >>> For those interested, I propose we move the major functionality slated
> for
> >>> JMS 2.1 forward through an open source community project that can be
> >>> standardized as soon as possible.
> >>>
> >>> I will post the details on this shortly. Support from major vendors
> >>> including Oracle for the comminity project would be most welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original message --------
> >>> From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
> >>> Date: 11/29/16 4:28 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net, jsr368-experts_at_jms-spec.java.net
> >>> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >>>
> >>> Oracle has now asked me to announce that it will withdraw JSR 368 (JMS
> 2.1),
> >>> in accordance with the proposed Java EE 8
> >>> roadmap presented by Anil Gaur and others at JavaOne 2016 and the
> results of
> >>> the community survey.
> >>>
> >>> This is also announced here:
> >>> https://blogs.oracle.com/theaquarium/entry/a_quick_update_on_java
> >>>
> >>> Note that although JSR 368 is ending, the email group
> >>> users_at_jms-spec.java.net continues for general discussion of the
> >>> JMS specification. If you have general questions about the plans for
> Java EE
> >>> 8 please use users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>>
> >>> Nigel
> >>> (JSR 368 specification lead)
> >>>
> >>> On 05/10/2016 09:47, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> >>>> As everyone will know, several Oracle-led JSRs (including JMS 2.1)
> have
> >>>> made little progress this year due to the spec
> >>>> leads being diverted partly or wholly to work on other things.
> >>>>
> >>>> At JavaOne last month Linda DeMichel, Java EE joint spec lead, gave an
> >>>> update on progress and plans for Java EE 8.
> >>>> You can watch the whole presentation online here:
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th9faGLhQoM
> >>>> or you can simply review the slides here:
> >>>> https://java.net/downloads/javaee-spec/JavaEE8Update.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda's presentation proposes a shift in focus for Java EE, to reflect
> >>>> recent developments in the industry, which she
> >>>> summarised as a "focus on deployment into the cloud", a "focus on
> >>>> microservices", and an "emphasis on more rapid
> >>>> evolution of applications".
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to address these changes, and modernise Java EE 8 for "cloud
> and
> >>>> microservices", she proposed a two-fold approach:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Adjust the plan for Java EE 8
> >>>> * Create a plan for, and start work on, Java EE 9
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 8 and JMS 2.1
> >>>> ---------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda confirmed the plan to complete Java EE 8 in 2017 as originally
> >>>> proposed, but with a number of changes to its
> >>>> content. These are listed in slides 27 and 28 of her slide deck.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Java EE 8 JSR and most of its constituent JSRs would continue as
> >>>> originally planned. She proposed that two new
> >>>> constituent JSRs be added, for health checking and for configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> And she proposed to drop three of the existing constituent JSRs: MVC
> 1.0
> >>>> (JSR 371), Management 2.0 (JSR 373) ... and JMS
> >>>> 2.1 (JSR 368).
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason for dropping JMS 2.1 was that JMS was "no longer very
> relevant
> >>>> in cloud". JMS would continue to be part of
> >>>> Java EE 8, but at its current version JMS 2.0 rather than at a new
> version
> >>>> JMS 2.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 9
> >>>> ---------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda went on to propose a plan for Java EE 9, which would focus more
> >>>> directly on the new requirements, with work
> >>>> running in parallel with Java EE 8 and with a release date of 2019.
> Please
> >>>> see Linda's slides for more details, and if
> >>>> you'd like to find out more about Java EE 9 I would recommend
> watching a
> >>>> couple of JavaOne presentations:
> >>>>
> >>>> Rajiv Mordani, Josh Dorr, Dhiraj Mutreja -- Enterprise Java for the
> Cloud
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7miysQP7Dg
> >>>> Josh Dorr, Joe Di Pol, Rajiv Mordani -- Portable Cloud Applications
> with
> >>>> Java EE
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqVSf5v37s
> >>>> There are two presentations because there was too much material to fit
> >>>> into a single presentation. They include some
> >>>> proposals for a new "eventing" JSR in Java EE 9 which I suspect will
> be of
> >>>> particular interest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views
> >>>> ----------
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views on all of these proposals are invited.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can make comments on proposal to drop JMS 2.1 from Java EE 8 here
> >>>> (users_at_jms-spec.java.net) or you can reach a wider
> >>>> audience by sending them to the Java EE users mailing list
> >>>> (users_at_javaee-spec.java.net). You can sign up to the latter
> >>>> at https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments on the proposals for Java EE 9 (including the "eventing"
> >>>> proposals) should be made to the Java EE users mailing
> >>>> list.
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition, the Java EE spec leads have launched a new Java EE
> community
> >>>> survey. Please do take part and give your
> >>>> views on the future of Java EE. This is at
> http://glassfish.org/survey .
> >>>> The survey closes on 21 Oct 2016. This will be
> >>>> followed by a second survey that allows people to prioritise the top
> items
> >>>> from the first survey.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nigel
> >>>> (JMS 2.1 spec lead)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Vaquar Khan
> >> +1 -224-436-0783 <(224)%20436-0783>
> >>
> >> IT Architect / Lead Consultant
> >> Greater Chicago
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> >> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS
> 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >> Date: 30 November 2016 at 21:13:08 GMT+1
> >> To: jms-spec users <users_at_jms-spec.java.net>,
> users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >> Reply-To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll definitely take a look ASAP. Certainly makes no sense to
> needlessly duplicate community effort.
> >>
> >> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> >> Date: 11/30/16 8:59 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: jms-spec users <users_at_jms-spec.java.net>
> >> Cc: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net, reza_rahman_at_lycos.com
> >> Subject: Re: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >>
> >> @Reza (and everybody else), you should follow this discussion about
> >> messaging on the micro profile:
> >>
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/microprofile/slv8lk_1smU/HFcdlhWiAwAJ
> >>
> >> I was trying to help on making JMS 2 better, but one of the Pitfalls
> >> of JMS 2, was that it would need to be fully compatible with JMS 1.1.
> >> (In my book fully compatible would mean 1.3, 1.4.. not a 2.0), so a
> >> lot of weight from JMS1 which was designed in a different era (10+
> >> years ago is already a long time).
> >>
> >> I think something new is needed anyways.. Something simpler that users
> >> can use and have the complexity embedded at the implementation. An API
> >> that is modern, simple and cheap to be implemented.
> >>
> >> I really think that the message API on the Microprofile could become
> >> something great...and that is already a good gathering around
> >> messaging folks on an open source community.
> >>
> >> the discussion is open and everyone is welcome.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> wrote:
> >>> This is truly unfortunate, but I can't say I didn't suspect it will
> happen.
> >>> For those interested, I propose we move the major functionality slated
> for
> >>> JMS 2.1 forward through an open source community project that can be
> >>> standardized as soon as possible.
> >>>
> >>> I will post the details on this shortly. Support from major vendors
> >>> including Oracle for the comminity project would be most welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original message --------
> >>> From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
> >>> Date: 11/29/16 4:28 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net, jsr368-experts_at_jms-spec.java.net
> >>> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> >>>
> >>> Oracle has now asked me to announce that it will withdraw JSR 368 (JMS
> 2.1),
> >>> in accordance with the proposed Java EE 8
> >>> roadmap presented by Anil Gaur and others at JavaOne 2016 and the
> results of
> >>> the community survey.
> >>>
> >>> This is also announced here:
> >>> https://blogs.oracle.com/theaquarium/entry/a_quick_update_on_java
> >>>
> >>> Note that although JSR 368 is ending, the email group
> >>> users_at_jms-spec.java.net continues for general discussion of the
> >>> JMS specification. If you have general questions about the plans for
> Java EE
> >>> 8 please use users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> >>>
> >>> Nigel
> >>> (JSR 368 specification lead)
> >>>
> >>> On 05/10/2016 09:47, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> >>>> As everyone will know, several Oracle-led JSRs (including JMS 2.1)
> have
> >>>> made little progress this year due to the spec
> >>>> leads being diverted partly or wholly to work on other things.
> >>>>
> >>>> At JavaOne last month Linda DeMichel, Java EE joint spec lead, gave an
> >>>> update on progress and plans for Java EE 8.
> >>>> You can watch the whole presentation online here:
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th9faGLhQoM
> >>>> or you can simply review the slides here:
> >>>> https://java.net/downloads/javaee-spec/JavaEE8Update.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda's presentation proposes a shift in focus for Java EE, to reflect
> >>>> recent developments in the industry, which she
> >>>> summarised as a "focus on deployment into the cloud", a "focus on
> >>>> microservices", and an "emphasis on more rapid
> >>>> evolution of applications".
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to address these changes, and modernise Java EE 8 for "cloud
> and
> >>>> microservices", she proposed a two-fold approach:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Adjust the plan for Java EE 8
> >>>> * Create a plan for, and start work on, Java EE 9
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 8 and JMS 2.1
> >>>> ---------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda confirmed the plan to complete Java EE 8 in 2017 as originally
> >>>> proposed, but with a number of changes to its
> >>>> content. These are listed in slides 27 and 28 of her slide deck.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Java EE 8 JSR and most of its constituent JSRs would continue as
> >>>> originally planned. She proposed that two new
> >>>> constituent JSRs be added, for health checking and for configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> And she proposed to drop three of the existing constituent JSRs: MVC
> 1.0
> >>>> (JSR 371), Management 2.0 (JSR 373) ... and JMS
> >>>> 2.1 (JSR 368).
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason for dropping JMS 2.1 was that JMS was "no longer very
> relevant
> >>>> in cloud". JMS would continue to be part of
> >>>> Java EE 8, but at its current version JMS 2.0 rather than at a new
> version
> >>>> JMS 2.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Java EE 9
> >>>> ---------
> >>>>
> >>>> Linda went on to propose a plan for Java EE 9, which would focus more
> >>>> directly on the new requirements, with work
> >>>> running in parallel with Java EE 8 and with a release date of 2019.
> Please
> >>>> see Linda's slides for more details, and if
> >>>> you'd like to find out more about Java EE 9 I would recommend
> watching a
> >>>> couple of JavaOne presentations:
> >>>>
> >>>> Rajiv Mordani, Josh Dorr, Dhiraj Mutreja -- Enterprise Java for the
> Cloud
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7miysQP7Dg
> >>>> Josh Dorr, Joe Di Pol, Rajiv Mordani -- Portable Cloud Applications
> with
> >>>> Java EE
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqVSf5v37s
> >>>> There are two presentations because there was too much material to fit
> >>>> into a single presentation. They include some
> >>>> proposals for a new "eventing" JSR in Java EE 9 which I suspect will
> be of
> >>>> particular interest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views
> >>>> ----------
> >>>>
> >>>> Your views on all of these proposals are invited.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can make comments on proposal to drop JMS 2.1 from Java EE 8 here
> >>>> (users_at_jms-spec.java.net) or you can reach a wider
> >>>> audience by sending them to the Java EE users mailing list
> >>>> (users_at_javaee-spec.java.net). You can sign up to the latter
> >>>> at https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments on the proposals for Java EE 9 (including the "eventing"
> >>>> proposals) should be made to the Java EE users mailing
> >>>> list.
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition, the Java EE spec leads have launched a new Java EE
> community
> >>>> survey. Please do take part and give your
> >>>> views on the future of Java EE. This is at
> http://glassfish.org/survey .
> >>>> The survey closes on 21 Oct 2016. This will be
> >>>> followed by a second survey that allows people to prioritise the top
> items
> >>>> from the first survey.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nigel
> >>>> (JMS 2.1 spec lead)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >>
> >> End of digest for list users_at_javaee-spec.java.net - Wed, 30 Nov 2016
> > workshops.adam-bien.com
> > effectivejavaee.com
> > blog.adam-bien.com
> > airhacks.news
> >
> > Author of:
> > "Real World Java EE Night Hacks”,
> > "Real World Java EE Patterns— Rethinking Best Practices"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>