Skip to main content

Jakarta EE Platform Call

Date: 2020-09-29


  • Ivar Grimstad (Eclipse Foundation)
  • Scott Marlow (Red Hat)
  • Andy McCright (IBM)
  • BJ Hargrave (IBM)
  • Kevin Sutter (IBM)
  • Paul Nicolucci (IBM)
  • Tanja Obradovic (Eclipse Foundation)
  • Cesar Hernandez (Tomitribe)
  • Jean-Louis Monteiro (Tomitribe)
  • Ed Bratt (Oracle)
  • Werner Keil (Individual)
  • Kenji Kazumura (Fujitsu)
  • Emily Jiang (IBM)

Agenda and Minutes

Housekeeping with the zoom call

Leave the public zoom coordinates in our Agenda header.
This approach enables a “waiting room” for participants. Can add domains to automatically allow in but not individual email addresses. At this point, we do not want to enable a password for this meeting.

No Platform call next week (pmc call occurs at the same time)

All specifications have a PR for Jakarta EE 9 now!

Platform Specification (Kevin is driving)

  • Web Profile and Managed Beans specs are in good shape
  • Corba/IIOP removal (David is working on this)
    • Does this removal affect the TCK assertions? - Scott Marlow?
      • TCK assertions
    • [Marlow] The RMI-IIOP/Corba tests are still in the Platform TCK, they are marked optional tests that are not run by default.
      • What does it mean to keep the assertion ids for these test?
      • What does it mean that these tests are in, is RMI-IIOP/Corba technologies optional or removed from the Platform spec?
    • Should we remove these RMI-IIOP/Corba tests instead?
      • We should of created a separate TCK for these tests
      • By default, if we keep the tests for RMI-IIOP/Corba there will be confusion.
      • We could delete or exclude the RMI-IIOP/Corba tests.
        • [Marlow] Reach out to David and get his input on removing versus excluding the RMI-IIOP/Corba tests.
        • We should try to be consistent on how we handle pruning/removal of technologies and their tests.
          • This process should be documented on Platform TCK project.
          • We should document what we did with regard to removing tests.
    • Lack of module names (document our approach for jakarta ee 9)
    • Compatibility section (based on input from Will and Dan (steering committee))
    • Jakarta EE 9.1 release (uncommitted + just mentioning ideas)
      • Jakarta EE 9 requires Java SE 8 for compatibility
      • Something beyond Jakarta EE 9 (9.1, 10, …) will allow additional Java SE’s beyond 8

Jakarta EE 10 (recurring agenda item)

  • Platform Guide
    • Ivar will set up a Google Doc where can start working on this
  • [WK] JDK version (range)?

Back to the top