Skip to main content

Jakarta EE Platform Call

Date: 2021-03-09


  • Ivar Grimstad (Eclipse Foundation)
  • Emily Jiang (IBM)
  • Brian Stansberry (Red Hat)
  • Kevin Sutter (IBM)
  • David Blevins (Tomitribe)
  • Dmitry Kornilov (Oracle)
  • Cesar Hernandez (Tomitribe)
  • Lukas Jungmann (Oracle)
  • Ed Bratt (Oracle)
  • Scott Marlow (Red Hat)
  • Tanja Obradovic (Eclipse Foundation)
  • BJ Hargrave (IBM)
  • Andy McCright (IBM)
  • Scott Stark (Red Hat)
  • Steve Millidge (Payara)
  • Werner Keil (Committer)

Agenda and Minutes

[IG] Housekeeping

  • New calendar: public url, iCal
  • Platform call details copied over to the new calendar
  • Current calendar still contains the meeting series throughout 2021

[KWS] Jakarta EE 9.1

  • Deliver Platform Specification Version 9.1 for Jakarta EE 9.1: #312
  • Deliver Web Profile Specification Version 9.1 for Jakarta EE 9.1: #313
  • Ensure Corba is properly specified as being Optional: #300

[Scott] EE 9.1 TCK results

  • Action: Add owners to the TCK issues + add issues in the GF issue tracker for failures
  • Updating to the new sigtest tooling to remove the need for having Java SE version specific signature map files is important for EE 9.1.
    • David mentioned that having the sigtest tooling verify that SPEC API class super class name is correct, should be a requirement (not nice to have).
  • Werner asked, if the JDK sigtests in newer JDK versions (9, 10 or higher) test for a JPMS module, apparently the JDK tests do not care about the modules yet.

[David] EJB vote for PortableRemoteObject narrow usage (for Jakarta EE 9.1)

  • David needs to document the vote. Option A seems to be the desired approach.
    • A. PortableRemoteObject.narrow must remain a requirement for users and servers that support EJB 2.x remote interfaces, which is part of the Enterprise Beans 2.x API optional group. Signature tests will be added to the TCK to verify servers that implement the Enterprise Beans 2.x API optional group are compliant. No specification changes in the Platform or Enterprise Beans specs would be needed for this approach.
  • Will require additional signature tests. Should be relatively straightforward exercise.

[IG] Spike activity in the component specifications

  • Suggestion: Create an issue for plan review (deadline April 15) in each spec project’s issue tracker
  • Scripts are in
  • Kevin will push the script to the specification-tools repository
  • Ivar will generate issues for the spec projects

[IG] Jakarta MVC

  • What is the process for requesting inclusion in the Web Profile?
  • MVC will create an issue in the platform issue tracker
  • Platform team will decide whether to include or not

General discussion topics for future releases (add to next week’s agenda)

  • Profiles
  • CDI

Release Lead for next release (EE 9.2 or 10)

  • Scott Stark may be able to do this depending on outcome of discussion topics

Develop release roadmap for 2021 (versions, quarters) - Q1 goal of 2021 Program plan

  • Identify a lead for this effort

Define TCK Guidelines

  • Part of the profiles topic above
  • Projects should be involved in discussions
  • Several PoCs exist
  • Both splitting and rejoining must be addressed
  • Announce that this is something we want to do immediately after 9.1
  • Will most likely put a bit of load on the TCK project, so hold off these discussions until after Jakarta EE 9.1

Back to the top