Forwarding Markus' email as he sent to the wrong alias.
- Rajiv
On 2/7/13 9:57 PM, Markus Eisele wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> it was a little bit hard to catch up on the recent discussion about
> this after Jfokus. But here we go:
> As Bill already mentioned, the Java EE platform EG is in strong favor
> about fixing this; I am part of it.
> I believe both Ron and Bill did explain the thoughts and ideas behind
> the proposal and I am glad to read that this generally is an issue
> with you, too.
>
> Further on I do believe that this came in late to the Servlet EG and
> already having the "judgment call" from Bill does make arguing with
> you harder or even impossible. I apologize for that.
> I received some of them before myself and I also didn't like it (e.g.
> Logging ;)).
>
> But at the end some things needs to be driven forward and this is a
> very obvious and relevant thing to move on with. I screened the
> http://java.net/jira/browse/SERVLET_SPEC issue tracker and tried to
> find out about the state of discussion or even get an impression about
> the already discussed proposals. But I didn't find any. Can someone
> please collect them and make them available again? Or is Greg's
> proposal the only thing so far? I got the impression that Mark also
> did one? Wouldn't it be good to have a wiki page about it? If there
> already is one, I didn't find it.
>
> I do agree that working this out together would have been the best
> (probably only) right thing to do. Having in mind, that the recent
> transparency moves in the JCP also fosters the cross specification
> works it is one of the lessons-learned for me so far. This isn't
> something that _just works_. We have to make it work. If this doesn't,
> at least in the mid term, I can tell you that I am in favor of the
> architecture council mentioned by Bill.
>
> As you already mentioned it might be a bigger mess to clear out if we
> change things today. I disagree. I'm working with a couple of projects
> every year and this is a re-occurring point of many security audits I
> have seen. Closing that gap today is better than closing it tomorrow.
> And breaking backward compatibility is a growing issue with many specs
> (e.g. CDI). So, you are not the only one calling for a solution here
> ....
>
> For now I can only ask for your support. Calling the next EE a Major
> release is kind of an exaggeration at least to me and there is good
> hope that we have a chance to pick this up again next time. Especially
> as there are some other things I also would love to see changed in
> that context. To me it seems reasonable to enter a new issue to the
> tracker and I believe that Ron and Bill agree on catching up with it
> again and working out a complete solution together!
>
> Thanks for listening,
> - Markus
>
> ___________
> twitter.com/myfear
> blog.eisele.net