So is the purpose of
https://github.com/javaee/jsonp/tree/master/api/src/main/jdk9 and the
related build profiles that it allows vendors and users of JSR 374 to build
a Java 9 compliant version of the API for themselves while the official JSR
374 JARs won't contain it until a later point?
We offer similar profiles for small parts of JSR 363 but so far we also did
not publish the smaller JARs to MavenCentral. Their main purpose is for
very small devices, e.g. Java ME Embedded. So vendors can build a smaller
JAR that's compliant with certain profiles.
Do the JDK 9 profiles in at least the JSON JSRs have a similar goal?
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>
wrote:
> The spec, *including** javadocs*, for these Java EE 8 APIs should not
> mention SE 9 modules.
>
> A vendor's implementation might support SE 9 modules, and might include
> that information in the vendor-specific documentation.
>
>
> Werner Keil wrote on 05/04/2017 01:25 PM:
>
> Dmitry,
>
> Nobody proposes to refer to modules in the spec (the written document
> where a JSR comes with it)
> A module definition like https://github.com/javaee/jsonb-spec/blob/master/
> api/src/main/java/module-info.java exposes the API, not RI, or are you
> saying you'd rather remove that on the API level for now?
>
> This file even shows the inter-dependency between JSON-B and JSON-P, there
> are certainly other cases like JSP or JSF using Servlet, etc. If an
> application also uses either of these modules and the module changes with
> EE 9 or a MR to the EE 8 content, it forces a change to that application.
>
> On the other hand, what we see around Java 9 including a hard time to even
> approve Jigsaw without some improvement and fixes, it still is going to be
> a great challenge to existing applications running Java 6, 7 or 8, so a
> changed module name is probably not the biggest barrier to use Java SE or
> EE 9 here ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Werner
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Dmitry Kornilov <
> dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Werner, I don’t understand what are you proposing. Bill made a clear
>> statement that modules must not be a part of specs. I agree with it. If
>> module is defined in an RI it doesn’t affect Java EE 8 at all because it’s
>> Java 8 based. On the other hand, some implementation, like JSON-P or Yasson
>> are designed to work in Java SE environment as well. It makes sense making
>> them JDK9 compatible. We follow naming convention proposed by Java team
>> (see email from Lukas below). If future versions of Java EE define
>> different module name convention, we will rename the modules.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dmitry
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *<werner.keil_at_gmail.com>
>> *Reply-To: *<jsr374-experts_at_json-processing-spec.java.net>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 4 May 2017 at 20:34
>> *To: *Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>, "users_at_javaee-spec.java.net"
>> <users_at_javaee-spec.java.net>, "users_at_jpa-spec.java.net" <
>> users_at_jpa-spec.java.net>
>> *Cc: *"jsr374-experts_at_json-processing-spec.java.net" <
>> jsr374-experts_at_json-processing-spec.java.net>, "pmo_at_jcp.org" <pmo_at_jcp.org>,
>> Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
>>
>> *Subject: *[jsr374-experts] Re: JPA_SPEC-145, JPA_SPEC-146: Provide
>> supportforJDK9 module system
>>
>>
>>
>> Just an example, so far all JSRs are supposed to use „java“, while some
>> internal parts of the JDK have a „jdk“ module prefix, so just something it
>> might change to. It does not matter what it changes to, the Change as such
>> will certainly make it harder to upgrade from Java EE 8 to 9 ;-/
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>
>> *Sent: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 20:30
>> *To: *werner.keil_at_gmail.com; users_at_javaee-spec.java.net;
>> users_at_jpa-spec.java.net
>> *Cc: *jsr374-experts_at_json-processing-spec.java.net; pmo_at_jcp.org; Linda
>> DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [jsr374-experts] Re: JPA_SPEC-145, JPA_SPEC-146: Provide
>> supportforJDK9 module system
>>
>>
>>
>> What's this JEE you're talking about?
>> <https://javaee.github.io/javaee-spec/JEE>
>>
>> Yes, all module names.
>>
>> werner.keil_at_gmail.com wrote on 05/04/2017 11:15 AM:
>>
>> All module names even those by individual modules like the ones Dmitry or
>> Lukas defined for JSR 374?!!
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be rather inconsistent and annoying. Some artifactIds of JSRs
>> like Servlet etc. also changed to contain the „javax.servlet“ string or
>> similar, but if 374 or any other Java EE JSR called their module
>> „java.json“ right now, and was forced to rename it to say „jee.json“ later,
>> it would make it difficult for modules consuming it.
>>
>>
>>
>> If only the Umbrella JEE module had any given Name and respected
>> individual modules following the current JCP Guideline, that’s something
>> else, I would not see much of a Problem with that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>
>> *Sent: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 20:04
>> *To: *users_at_javaee-spec.java.net; users_at_jpa-spec.java.net
>> *Cc: *jsr374-experts_at_json-processing-spec.java.net; pmo_at_jcp.org; Linda
>> DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
>> *Subject: *[jsr374-experts] Re: JPA_SPEC-145, JPA_SPEC-146: Provide
>> support forJDK9 module system
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree, and that's what I've told our team.
>>
>> None of our Java EE 8 specs should reference SE 9 modules.
>>
>> On the other hand, if the reference implementations accommodate SE 9
>> modules, I'm fine with that. But the module names won't be a JCP standard
>> and thus would be subject to change when defined by a future standard.
>>
>> Kevin Sutter wrote on 05/03/2017 02:24 PM:
>>
>> We should not be incorporating Java SE 9 module definitions into
>> individual Java EE specifications without the proper guidance from the Java
>> EE Platform. We have to be consistent with this effort. I know some of
>> the older Java EE specs that have been incorporated into Java SE have been
>> defining MRs with the required Java SE 9 updates. But, since Java EE 8
>> only requires Java SE 8, we should not be defining Java SE 9 module info in
>> these "child" specifications. This should be a platform requirement that
>> filters down to the child specs.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> 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 (office)
>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann_at_oracle.com>
>> <lukas.jungmann_at_oracle.com>
>> To: users_at_jpa-spec.java.net
>> Cc: jsr374-experts_at_json-processing-spec.java.net, pmo_at_jcp.org,
>> users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
>> Date: 05/03/2017 03:28 PM
>> Subject: [jpa-spec users] Re: [jsr374-experts] Re: JPA_SPEC-145,
>> JPA_SPEC-146: Provide support for JDK9 module system
>>
>> [image: id:image001.png_at_01D2C513.38F97A10]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [forgot to cc others in my original reply]
>>
>> --lukas
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/17 9:24 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
>> Lukas,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the pointer especially the JEP and its mention of a
>> standard namespace for all JCP defined artifacts. That'll help.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Werner
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann_at_oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Werner,
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/17 6:24 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
>> Lukas,
>>
>> Thanks for bringing that up.
>>
>> I was wondering, if there is a common pattern all (Java EE) JSRs are
>> supposed to follow for making the JSRs Java 9/Jigsaw compatible?
>>
>> JSON-B https://github.com/javaee/jsonb-spec/blob/master/api/
>> src/main/java/module-info.java
>> and JSON-P https://github.com/javaee/jsonp/blob/master/api/src/
>> main/jdk9/module-info.java
>> already got a module-info (at least for JSR 374 it was also you who
>> created or last changed it;-)
>>
>> right, I was the one who created it for JSON-P and suggested JSON-B to
>> use it as well. The idea behind it was that JSON-B is fresh new, simple API
>> targeted to Java SE 8+ and with JDK 9 release coming it made sense to me to
>> try to align JSON-B with it (...so MR won't be needed later just because of
>> JDK9). JSON-P was kind of consequence of this since JSON-B depends on
>> JSON-P...
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't think there's common pattern to make JSRs Java 9
>> compatible except of those being part of JDK 9 (eg. JSR-67 (SAAJ), JSR-222
>> (JAXB) and JSR-224 (JAX-WS) on which I've been working on as well)
>>
>>
>> As for this spec/JPA 2.2 MR - I'm not strictly against not defining
>> module name (and I'd actually prefer to define it as soon as
>> provider-agnostic JPA API artifact becomes available) but since there is
>> currently no provider-agnostic JPA API artifact, it does not make much
>> sense to me at this point.
>>
>>
>> Based on module naming by the JDK itself, should we take
>> "java.<something>" as a module name to be the preferred name for both the
>> JDK and all JSRs under jcp.org?
>>
>> Or are there other preferences e.g. "javax.<something>" to match the
>> Maven GroupId of most Java EE JSRs especially those by Oracle?
>> see https://github.com/javaee/jsonp/blob/master/api/pom.xmlfor JSR 374.
>>
>> A former EG Member of JSR 363 also asked this in our list and we
>> discussed what would be a good module name there, but wanted to wait for
>> official JCP guidance if possible.
>>
>> the only official naming convention I'm aware of is defined by
>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/200which states that:
>>
>> 1. Standard modules, whose specifications are governed by the JCP, must
>> have names starting with the string "java.".
>>
>> ...that should answer your question ;-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --lukas
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Werner
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann_at_oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since the release of JDK 9 is behind the corner, it would be good to
>> update the spec to be ready for it.
>> I can see 2 things which can be done:
>>
>> 1) JPA_SPEC-145: define module name
>>
>> I'm not 100% sure this needs to be done but for the sake of completeness
>> - it is clear that the module name should be 'java.persistence'. While it
>> would be nice to have the name defined and available, do we really need
>> this or should we stick with API being resolved on JDK9 as an automatic
>> module?
>>
>> I'm proposing to NOT touch this area in the spec now and keep this up to
>> the provider. Any opinions?
>>
>> 2) JPA_SPEC-146: Use ServiceLoader facility
>>
>> with the introduction of the module system there are currently 2 ways,
>> how persistence provider implementation can be defined - META-INF/services
>> and module-info with 'provides ... with...'. Former way is already covered
>> but the latter is not, so I'd like to propose following change to Section
>> 9.2 of the spec (additions are in italics, removals are striked-through
>> italics)
>>
>> *Section 9.2 Bootstrapping in Java SE Environments*
>>
>> In Java SE environments, the Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory
>> method is used
>> by the application to create an entity manager factory.
>>
>> A persistence provider implementation running in a Java SE environment
>> should also act as a service
>> provider by supplying a service provider configuration *file as
>> described in the JAR File Specification*.
>> *The Persistence bootstrap class should use ServiceLoader facility to
>> locate all available provider implementations.*
>>
>> The provider configuration *file* serves to export the provider
>> implementation class to the Persistence
>> bootstrap class, positioning the provider as a candidate for backing
>> named persistence units.
>> The provider may supply the provider configuration file by creating a
>> text file named javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider
>> and placing it in the META-INF/services directory of
>> one of its JAR files. The contents of the file should be the name of the
>> provider implementation class of
>> the javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider interface.
>>
>> Example* 1*:
>> A persistence vendor called ACME persistence products ships a JAR called
>> acme.jar that contains
>> its persistence provider implementation. The JAR includes the provider
>> configuration file.
>>
>> acme.jar
>> META-INF/services/javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider
>> com.acme.PersistenceProvider
>> …
>>
>> The contents of the META-INF/services/javax.persis
>> tence.spi.PersistenceProvider
>> file is nothing more than the name of the implementation class:
>> com.acme.PersistenceProvider.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * Example 2: A persistence vendor called ACME persistence products ships
>> a module called acme.jar that provides persistence provider implementation.
>> The JAR contains module definition which contains the name of the
>> implementation class. acme.jar module-info.class … module acme {
>> provides javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider with
>> com.acme.PersistenceProvider; … } The source code of the provider's module
>> definition must contain the name of the provider’s implementation class.*
>>
>>
>> Persistence provider jars may be installed or made available in the same
>> ways as other service providers,
>> e.g. as extensions*,* or added to the application classpath according to
>> the guidelines in the JAR File
>> Specification *or added to the application module path according to the
>> guidelines in the Java Platform Module System specification*.
>>
>> Do you think this is fine, something should be corrected or is there a
>> reason why this second part should not be added to JPA 2.2 MR?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> --lukas
>>
>> [1]: https://java.net/jira/browse/JPA_SPEC-145
>> [2]: https://java.net/jira/browse/JPA_SPEC-146
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>