[jpa-spec users] Re: Feedback on the JPA 2.2 MR process...

From: Scott Marlow <>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:33:09 -0500


Just to be more clear about why I am disappointed about not yet being
able to participate in discussions about what will be included in the
JPA 2.2 (MR). I expected there to be earlier discussion about which
items are being added to the initial JPA 2.2 draft specification. I
also expected the discussion about which items (JPA spec jiras) to
include, to occur openly on an expert group mailing list. Instead, I
happened to read on the EE mailing list, that a plan of possible items
that will be under consideration for JPA 2.2, are available via [4] (as
well as [2]).

By having the JPA expert group discussions publicly, we will follow an
open process that allows anyone to express their feedback, for all to
see. I think that all expert groups should *default to open* or answer
for why they are not yet open or what their plan is to be more open.

I do *like* that for the JavaOne presentation, feedback on the items
proposed for JPA 2.2, were encouraged. However, the (potential) JPA
expert group should be (publicly) kept in the loop as well. The
(potential) JPA expert group should be part of discussion about which
items are (possibly) under consideration for 2.2.



On 12/10/2015 10:10 AM, Scott Marlow wrote:
> Hi,
> I have some feedback that I would like to share about the JPA 2.2
> process (see email [1]). While, I enjoyed
> listening to Lukas Jungmann's presentation [2], I am disappointed to not
> yet be able to participate in the discussion of what changes should be
> in JPA 2.2. I think it is very important that we follow the JCP 2.9
> 1.1.1 [3] guidance. I think that the easiest way to ensure that the
> substantial development of the JPA 2.2 MR specification is observable,
> is to immediately start a mailing list.
> I also would like to congratulate Lukas Jungmann, on being the new JPA
> specification lead! :-)
> Regards,
> Scott
> [1]
> [2]
> [3] Section 1.1.1 from
> Expert Groups may choose to keep purely administrative matters private,
> but all substantive business must be performed in a manner that allows
> the public to observe their work and to respond to it. All proceedings,
> discussions, and working documents must be published, and a mechanism
> must be established to allow the public to provide feedback. One common
> way of meeting these requirements is through the use of mailing lists,
> but other alternatives such as blogs, Wikis, and discussion forums may
> be preferred. Whatever communication mechanisms are chosen, these must
> include an archiving function so that a record of all communications is
> preserved. Archives must be readable by the public. 3
> "