Comments on: EE6 Public Draft APPROVED http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/ Onward! Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:04:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1146 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:19:57 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1146 OK, thanks for the clarification Pawel, it makes indeed more sense.

cheers,

sacha

]]> By: Paweł Paprota http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1145 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:19:36 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1145 Unfortunate wording on my part, sorry! I mean that I am curious on how SpringSource’s involvement worked out in practice. For now I can only judge it by some news items I’ve read during past several months and their vote comment that was surprisingly on merit in contrast to other, often “auto-generated” ones. Although I understand that the comment is only a small part of what JSR execs are doing :-)

In general I would think that SpringSource had a clear “technical agenda” going into the JSR process given their background in enterprise Java product landscape. And it’s the reason I will look closer than usually at JSR process (especially such high profile ones as EE).

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1144 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:26:49 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1144 Pawel,

How can you say, in the same sentence:
i) “SS made a good addition to the JSR process”, and
ii) “I need [...] to judge to what extent they were allowed to influence the outcome”

What do you mean?

I am in favor of making all EE discussions be public, I think it would help the community have more leverage on where things go.

]]> By: Paweł Paprota http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1143 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:55:46 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1143 It’s nice to see that SpringSource made a good addition to the JSR process. I need to read the spec more closely to judge to what extent they were allowed to influence the outcome.

I must say I am disappointed by Sacha’s comments towards SpringSource’s vote, I am sure they don’t have some evil ultimate domination plan neither they want to undermine JSR efforts. If only everyone could get along technically and politically speaking then it would be so much more productive world…

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1141 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:49:06 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1141 Hello cdiesse,

We have indeed invested a lot of effort and innovation in EE6 and other specs (299, JSF, EJB, etc.)

I obviously disagree with the order of your preference list. Well, maybe not so much since tomcat is included in JBoss – but with additional services which boost it on steroids :)

Cheers,

sacha

]]> By: cdiesse http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1140 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:22:46 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1140 Good news !
For this run, I think jboss has been paid for his involvement, loyalty and strong support for java EE. Most java developers are waiting the first jsr-299 ri implementation from jboss and the the jsf-2.0 richfaces version.

The reference open source for Java EE 6 in top preference list are : tomcat 6, glassfish v3 and jboss 5. (Maybe Oracle AS)

Spring must align on sun or die.

My 2 cents.

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1138 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:07:30 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1138 Thanks for your comment anil, we value your feedback.

]]> By: anil http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1137 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:52:29 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1137 even more proof that jboss is still nothing more than a bunch of crybaby wankers. always taking pot-shots anywhere they can instead of just taking the high road.

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1136 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:49:19 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1136 Thanks Adam. FYI, the complete list of all comments made by all EC members is available from my post – third hyperlink.

]]> By: Adam FitzGerald http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1135 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:45:14 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1135 For the record, here is the complete text of the SpringSource comment regarding EE6 review vote:

“The introduction of profiles is a step in the right direction. However, we are disappointed not to see a minimal web profile, especially as this has become the choice of most enterprise Java users.

As with previous releases, the inclusion of unproven technology is a risk, especially in JSR 299 and EJB concurrency annotations. The number of substantial changes late in the process also gives us concern about the maturity of the result–especially, the impact of the scope creep of JSR 299 on other specifications.

Experience has shown that tying dependency injection features to a server environment does not match user requirements, as injection is common to all application types. We would have preferred to see a dependency injection model for SE, as we proposed in 2007.

Finally, we are not convinced that the end result matches the goals of Java EE 6 as defined in the original specification request, which we strongly supported.”

Adam FitzGerald
SpringSource

]]> By: J2EE 6 - Draft - Approved « Java Hellenic User Group http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/02/26/ee6-public-draft-approved/#comment-1134 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:46:41 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=276#comment-1134 [...] εδώ.Σχόλια εδώ. Το διαβάσαμε στο [...]

]]>