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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>