Skip to main content

Jakarta EE Platform Call

Date: 2021-03-30


  • Jean-Louis Monteiro (Tomitribe)
  • Ivar Grimstad (Eclipse Foundation)
  • Jesse McConnell (Webtide)
  • Kevin Sutter (IBM)
  • Emily Jiang (IBM)
  • Andy McCright (IBM)
  • Dmitry Kornilov (Oracle)
  • BJ Hargrave (IBM)
  • Ed Bratt (Oracle)
  • Scott Marlow (Red Hat)
  • Werner Keil (Individual)
  • Tomas Langer (Oracle)
  • Thomas Watson (IBM)
  • Martin Stefanko (Red Hat)
  • Brian Stansberry (Red Hat)
  • Nathan Erwin (Individual)
  • Steve Millidge (Payara)
  • Lukas Jungmann (Oracle)
  • Kenji Kazumura (Fujitsu)

Agenda and Minutes

Jakarta EE 9.1

  • Compatibility Certification Requests for individual specifications?
    • Thread on mailing list (subject: “Compatibility Certification Requirements for EE 9.1”):
      • is response from Scott Marlow
    • Clarification: Most of the “individual TCKs” are produced from the CTS and tests a single API component
    • Discussion to be continued on the mailing list - Please participate. Will try to decide on this request by next week’s call.
  • GF 6.1 RC1?
    • GlassFish now pass Full and Web Profile
    • RC1 will be released Wednesday next week
  • Java SE Versions PR:

  • TCK Status
    • Optional parts of TCK – Scott’s changes are looking good
      • CORBA optional aspects need some verification – TomEE candidate?
      • Signature tests will be different – agnostic of Java level. What is the real impact of these changes? Scott Marlow is looking for review assistance.
  • Release Date: Still aiming for mid-May
    • Signature test change to not include JDK information will not block the EE 9.1 release.
    • TCK changes need to be done by Friday April 9, 2021 (as per our 2 week estimate to make final changes).

Core Profile Discussion

  • New specification under the Jakarta EE Platform Project?
    • No need for project creation review (may need a restructuring review)
  • Spec committee creation review requirements for profiles
    • Spec committee approval by super-majority, and
    • Super-majority approval by Jakarta EE WG Strategic members
  • Action: Set up a Google Doc to draft the content of creation review (release plan) - Ivar

Jakarta Config Discussion

  • Simplistic: @ConfigValue

  • Two options presented
    1. Move MP config to Jakarta EE
      • Change namespace?
      • It was noted by at least two participants in the call that not doing so could seriously affect implementing solutions of both MP config and Jakarta EE like Wildfly and many others because would cause a JPMS package-splitting problem to keep an older MP version (e.g. MP4.x in Wildfly 23 next to a newer version of Jakarta EE that would then hypothetically split the MP config package into Jakarta EE).
    2. Create a lightweight config specification under Jakarta EE
      • Annotation only?
      • MP config could extend this spec
      • Next steps: Possibly move “things” from MP config to Jakarta Config
  • We want to avoid forks or conflicting solutions

Back to the top