John,
We had one case, where Oracle turned over Spec Lead duties of Portlet
Bridge to Liferay.
The main reason why JSR 378 is undergoing Renewal Ballot right now can be
seen because JSR 362 (Portlet 3.0, its underlying foundation) also did and
Portlet 3 is not final yet.
However, with the Portlet spec aiming at Public Draft in the near future
that should change and the handover by Oracle had very little to do with
the state or renewal of Portlet Bridge.
Also Oracle started Portlet Bridge with an Apache RI and license in the
first place. So if you hint, e.g. Apache and the ActiveMQ team could take
it over, well technically they could, but from a license and IP point, it
would be extremely hard if not impossible given the long history of JMS at
Sun, later Oracle.
It is challenging enough with entirely new JSRs like the ideas for
configuration, etc. where no IP was contributed. In their case existing
projects like Tamaya could act as RI or contribute to it, but where 15
years or more IP contribution under different licenses occurred, not to
forget the closed-source TCK for JMS and Java EE as a whole (Portlet or
Portlet Bridge were never part of the platform, so that also made it easier
in their case)
And looking at Spec Lead sharing, especially JCache (JSR 107) where Greg
Luck helped out initial Spec Lead Oracle, it's ongoing License struggle and
fight or at least miss-communication over licensing or the relevance to the
Cloud and platform are also not a good example on how this might work e.g.
for JMS. Even though 107 went final after more than a decade, its licensing
woes feel more like Syria than Kosovo right now;-|
Werner
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:13 AM, <users-request_at_jms-spec.java.net> wrote:
> Table of contents:
>
> 1. [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8 - Lenny Primak
> <lprimak_at_hope.nyc.ny.us>
> 2. [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8 - Clebert
> Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> 3. [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8 - "John D.
> Ament" <john.d.ament_at_gmail.com>
> 4. [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8 - Evans
> Armitage <evans.armitage_at_gmail.com>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Lenny Primak <lprimak_at_hope.nyc.ny.us>
> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 15:22:15 -0500
> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> I think JMS spec is very, very important, even in today's microservice
> environment.
> It is stable, easy (and getting easier) to use and should be basis for any
> new eventing proposals.
> It needs to be moved forward.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> To: jms-spec users <users_at_jms-spec.java.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:25:18 +0200
> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> I haven't seen anyone beyond Oracle saying JMS is not important to the
> cloud (I'm not including Nigel on this).
>
> So, I think everyone is in agreement that JMS is important, even for the
> cloud.
>
> Having said that, maybe it's too late to do anything for JavaEE 8 as
> it's due to be released too soon for us to do anything, but maybe we
> should move forward into proposing things that will be important on
> such environments and future EE releases.
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Lenny Primak <lprimak_at_hope.nyc.ny.us>
> wrote:
> > I think JMS spec is very, very important, even in today's microservice
> environment.
> > It is stable, easy (and getting easier) to use and should be basis for
> any new eventing proposals.
> > It needs to be moved forward.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament_at_gmail.com>
> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:37:45 +0000
> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> I wonder if Oracle would be willing to relinquish control of the spec to
> another group? And have someone from there act as spec lead if no one from
> Oracle is available due to budgetting issues (as implied by Linda's
> comments during the JavaOne talk)
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:25 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen anyone beyond Oracle saying JMS is not important to the
>>
>> cloud (I'm not including Nigel on this).
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I think everyone is in agreement that JMS is important, even for the
>> cloud.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said that, maybe it's too late to do anything for JavaEE 8 as
>>
>> it's due to be released too soon for us to do anything, but maybe we
>>
>> should move forward into proposing things that will be important on
>>
>> such environments and future EE releases.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Lenny Primak <lprimak_at_hope.nyc.ny.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think JMS spec is very, very important, even in today's microservice
>> environment.
>>
>> > It is stable, easy (and getting easier) to use and should be basis for
>> any new eventing proposals.
>>
>> > It needs to be moved forward.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Evans Armitage <evans.armitage_at_gmail.com>
> To: users_at_jms-spec.java.net
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:49:49 +0200
> Subject: [jms-spec users] Re: The future of JMS 2.1 and Java EE 8
> We are currently using spring cloud technologies at work with IBM MQ as
> the messaging platform.
> We are using spring-cloud-stream modules for our micro-services which
> abstracts an integration technology into channels from the application side
> with the specific integration technology defined at runtime through a
> binder SPI. The spring-cloud-stream community is currently contributing a
> binder for JMS[1] to aid in binding to JMS providers at runtime. We have
> also just ran a topcoder initiative[2] to have an IBM MQ specific binder to
> be developed which was successfully completed[3].
> We were therefore quite surprised to see talk about JMS not being relevant
> for the cloud.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Evans Armitage
>
>
>
>
> [1]https://github.com/CalamarBicefalo/spring-cloud-stream-binder-jms
> [2]https://www.topcoder.com/challenge-details/30054732/?type=develop
> [3]https://github.com/CIBTN/finalFix-2-cloud-stream-binder-ibmmq-final
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen anyone beyond Oracle saying JMS is not important to the
>> cloud (I'm not including Nigel on this).
>>
>> So, I think everyone is in agreement that JMS is important, even for the
>> cloud.
>>
>> Having said that, maybe it's too late to do anything for JavaEE 8 as
>> it's due to be released too soon for us to do anything, but maybe we
>> should move forward into proposing things that will be important on
>> such environments and future EE releases.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Lenny Primak <lprimak_at_hope.nyc.ny.us>
>> wrote:
>> > I think JMS spec is very, very important, even in today's microservice
>> environment.
>> > It is stable, easy (and getting easier) to use and should be basis for
>> any new eventing proposals.
>> > It needs to be moved forward.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>
>
> End of digest for list users_at_jms-spec.java.net - Tue, 11 Oct 2016
>
>