Skip to main content

Jakarta EE Platform Call

Date: 2020-01-21


  • Kevin Sutter (IBM)
  • Andy McCright (IBM)
  • Paul Nicolucci (IBM)
  • Bill Shannon (Oracle)
  • Steve Millidge (Payara)
  • Ivar Grimstad (Eclipse Foundation)
  • BJ Hargrave (IBM)
  • Jesse McConnell (Webtide)
  • Carlos Andres De La Rosa (Eclipse Foundation)
  • Kenji Kazumura (Fujitsu)
  • Scott Marlow (Red Hat)
  • Rudy De Busscher (Payara)
  • Jonathan Gallimore (Tomitribe)
  • Alessio Soldano (Red Hat)
  • Nathan Erwin (Eclipse Contributor)
  • Nitin Dahyabhai (IBM, Eclipse Web Tools Platform)


Backward compatibility for descriptor schemas [BS]

Schema name and location Should implementations be required to support the old versions of the schemas? Jakarta EE 8 (based on Java EE 8) already supports the previous versions of the schemas.

Bill will send out a note with the alternatives (Done). Next week we will decide.


Are these implicitly included due to the dropping of the EJB Interop capabilities? Or, do they need to be explicitly stated in the Release Plan? Document via an Errata on Release Plan. Verify with Steering and Spec Committees. Interoperability tests can be moved out of Platform TCK, into (new) separate standalone TCK Or, they can be left in the Platform TCK with appropriate tags to avoid/allow execution. Could be used by vendors that still implement RMI-IIOP + Corba

Version numbers and release qualifiers​ [BS]

The recommendation is to use uppercase release qualifiers. Not a firm requirement, but a strong recommendation.

Spec Version Plugin may require updates. File an issue if there are problems using it.

Focus on moving Issues from “Plan Review” to “In Progress” [KWS]

The Plan and Plan Review columns have a note at the top explaining when to move an issue to In Progress. Kevin will expand a bit on these explanations (Done). The Release Candidate API URL column is a special case. It is for creating a new note with the URL to the RC. Not for moving issues through statuses. Clicking on a label (e.g. “wave1”) shows the board filtered by that label to give an overview of the status for that particular label

Everyone involved in any of the specifications in the Plan Review column is encouraged to take a look and help move these forward. Especially those in the early waves.

Frequency of these Platform calls? [KWS]

Still need them weekly? Every other week? Once a month? We’re making progress with the Issues and Project Board, just wondering if these weekly calls are still necessary.

These meetings are good for “closing” discussions going on in emails The document for the agenda and minutes is the same document (this) every week. If you have an agenda item to add for the next meeting and the agenda hasn’t been prepared yet, please feel free to start a new agenda at the top…

DECISION: Continuing with the weekly call. We will cancel if the agenda is empty (give 24 hour notice).

Failure to build Glassfish. [Arjan]

JIRO migration has affected the Glassfish builds. Suggestion is to post issues/questions to the glassfish-dev mailing list and/or create Issues for tracking.

Specification Documents [IG]

All documents have been released and are ready for “Jakartification”. Yeah!

Back to the top