Comments on: EE6 has been approved, yet… http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/ Onward! Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:04:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: GAE+VMW: co-petition in the cloud-era « Sacha’s Weblog http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1550 Wed, 26 May 2010 07:53:06 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1550 [...] VMSource gets to amplify their desire to see Spring as the defacto Java programming model of the cloud (remember, they seem to fully ignore EE6!), [...]

]]> By: Tony http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1442 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:09:40 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1442 Agreed Sacha. I thought the article might give more insight into why they didn’t vote.

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1435 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:09:35 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1435 rainwebs, if EE and its related specs didn’t exist, Spring wouldn’t exist. Remember that Spring is a wrapper around EE API and that portability is provided by those APIs. Spring has never been a full fledge runtime in itself.

As for the JCP, SS are member of its Executive Committee. If they thought the JCP was so bad, they would have already left it I’d imagine.

]]> By: rainwebs http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1434 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:35:23 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1434 When do we ignore something? If it’s not important to us. I can’t remember that newer JEE specifications were important to SpringSource in the past. We all know why Spring was invented ;-) .

Nobody is able to ignore the Spring ecosystem these days. But, there are a lot who already ignore the JCP. The JCP was a brilliant idea at the beginning. But, JCP lost the lead. Rod was one of the first who recognized this and delivered an enterprise-ready alternative. I’m quite happy that I have this alternative these days.

The market share of Spring on Tomcat deployments already foreshadows the future of heavy-weight application servers. The continuous implementation of new JCP standards will not stop this ;-) .

]]> By: Mark Little http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1433 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:05:29 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1433 http://www.developer.com/java/ent/article.php/3851351/Whats-Wrong-With-JavaEE-6.htm

]]> By: Mark Little http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1432 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:17:24 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1432 The harmonization between 330 and 299 was driven by Google on the 330 side, with Red Hat, Oracle and Sun on the 299 side. Nothing from SpringSource at all.

]]> By: ChrisW http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1431 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:48:27 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1431 I think SS got what they wanted, which is to harmonize the @Inject annotations with JSR 330. JSR 330 standardizes non-EE DI implementations like Spring and Guice, so it makes sense from SpringSource’s perspective to harmonize the DI annotations between 299 and 330. That makes their participation meaningful: to ensure EE and non-EE source compatibility for DI. Once that is accomplished SpringSource’s interest in JSR 299 ends.

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1430 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:57:17 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1430 Then they should not have participated in the EE6 expert group in the first place. As for the EE6 vote, this is really a responsibility of EC members and SS is an EC member.

]]> By: ChrisW http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1429 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:51:54 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1429 I don’t think there is any need to make a fuss out of SpringSource’s nonparticipation in this vote. This is a Java EE standard. SpringSource is the JEE *alternative*: its whole purpose in life is to be the not-EE product. For SpringSource to vote on a Java EE standard is like Microsoft voting on any Java JSR: it’s in poor taste.

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1428 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:49:29 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1428 Hello Chris,

I don’t think so. The Apache Foundation has been voting NOT to all Sun-led JSR for more than 2 years no! Consequently, it comes at no surprise they have voted NO to EE6 since it is a spec led by SUN. However, they voted YES to JSR-299. In the case of SS, they haven’t voted to any of those specs. And I just canot see this as a mere oversight.

Cheers,

Sacha

]]> By: Chris http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1427 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:56:29 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1427 Heh. I thought it was pretty funny post “as-is”.

Obviously, I’m blowing all of this out of proportion for fun but at the end of the day, I’m just a customer of both redhat and springsource. I have no insider “insight” but one reason seems fairly obvious in hindsight: The ASF votes “no”: No press or blog coverage. SpringSource doesn’t vote: Even the JBoss blogs are writing about them. Perhaps this is an attempt at “Succès de scandale”?

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1426 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:39:43 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1426 And yet… you don’t explain why they didnt’ simply vote NO :) and this is not just for JSR-299, but all recent votes.

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1425 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:31:01 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1425 Cay,

Possibly, but my DNA prevents me from going there ;) And you’ll admit those are not the best days for the GF team.

Onward,

sacha

]]> By: Blogging Techstacks http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1424 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:36:37 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1424 The Fight Continues!! – JBoss vs. SpringSource…

While trolling through my feed subscriptions, I ran across this post entitled: “EE6 Has Been Approved, Yet…” It’s been a while since I’ve read anything in “print” regarding my imaginary Sun Microsystems vs. JBoss vs. SpringSource war so regardles…

]]> By: Cay Horstmann http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1423 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:32:07 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1423 JBoss did a great job with Weld, but if you want to see EE6 in action, give GlassFish v3 a try. It contains Weld from JBoss and all the other EE6 goodness from other sources (Sun, Apache, EclipseLink). It’s very fast and easy to use.

]]> By: Sacha http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1422 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:40:37 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1422 Tony, this article doesn’t explain why SS didn’t vote. If they din’t endorse this spec, a NO vote would have been more appropriate, don’t you think?

]]> By: Tony http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1420 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:17:00 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1420 http://www.developer.com/java/ent/article.php/3851351/Whats-Wrong-With-JavaEE-6.htm

]]> By: Mark Little http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/12/03/ee6-has-been-approved-yet/#comment-1417 Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:39:03 +0000 http://sacha.labourey.com/?p=417#comment-1417 Thought you might like to see http://blogs.jboss.org/blog/mlittle/?permalink=Java_EE_6_is_a_approved.txt

]]>