[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J
|
+1, Steve. Moving Java EE to Eclipse
*allows* for more community involvement, but it does not *require* more
community involvement to use EE4J.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutterFrom:
Steven Pousty <scitronp@xxxxxxxxxx>To:
EE4J community discussions
<ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date:
10/25/2017 11:49 PMSubject:
Re: [ee4j-community]
Red Hat committment to EE4JSent by:
ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
So, coming from a vendor but not really being involved
at any high level, here is what I think most of the vendors intend to say
here.
Java EE used to be perceived as "owned" by Oracle
and there was very little incentive for people to participate in any way
with the development of Java EE. It was basically - "Here is what
the JCP has decided - no go away"
What I think people want now is more interaction - not
necessarily hardcore engineering work or even spec writing (though if someone
wants to that great). It's more of just let's grow some more participation
in the community now that it belongs to everyone. That's NOT saying everyone
has to participate or needs to participate to use EE4J.
It's just there is a hope that people will start giving
talks using EE4J, give feedback on proposals over the mailing list (seems
to have that one checked already ;) ), help companies understand the value
that EE4J represents and encourage them to use it....
Maybe, now that we are really Open Source and Open Community
more people might put in more hours directly working on EE4J. But I don't
think that is what some of the Vendor people are asking from anyone who
wants to use it.On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:I was really thinking long and hard whether to respond
further. I do think there is something substantive to add.From a purely personal standpoint, I agree consumers and
beneficiaries of a technology need to give back. Indeed that is the basic
principle under which I personally have operated with regards to Java EE
for more than a decade now.The reality is far from that simple.From my company standpoint, my management has made it
amply clear my first priority is paying clients, not the advancement of
any given technology. They have been willing to go so far as to look the
other way on how I spend my free time (aka not asking why I am not putting
in 60-70 billable hours) and not making me take vacation when I speak at
conferences as long as I figure out my own travel expenses. That is more
than they do to support any of the hundreds of other technologies my company
benefits from. I suspect these accommodations are made only because they
know if they do not make these compromises I will be easily able to find
someone else that will. This last point has deeper practical implications.The reality is that technology is competitive. There are
lots of companies that depend on technologies like Java SE, Scala, Spring,
Akka, Play, etc. The companies that firmly stand behind these technologies
do not expect consumers to pay anything back directly. Java EE is no different
in their eyes. It is an almost laughably impractical idea for me to go
to even my most committed Java EE clients and tell them they should contribute
back time, money and resources to Java EE. They will straight up tell me
I should find another more supportive client and they are moving to Spring
themselves. Pivotal won't ask them to contribute anything back and neither
will their favorite Spring consultant...I do hope these are competitive realities the principal
stakeholders of EE4J take well to heart. There are lots of people in the
community that have and will continue to contribute plenty to Java EE.
If we now expect these people to suddenly do exponentially more, this is
an effort that is no doubt destined for failure, even in the short term.
Java EE vendors do need to figure out shortly how they plan to effectively
fill the gap that Sun/Oracle will now leave behind (or hopefully even exceed
it).On Oct 25, 2017 10:40 AM, "Steve Millidge (Payara)"
<steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Reza,
I think “vendors” will pick up a lot of the work. However
not all EE4J vendors are or will be big global companies 😉.
Also it is not only vendors that employ developers with the ability to
contribute.
I think the word Community encompasses a lot more than
the individual contributing in their spare time. Many of the companies
that actually made “tons of money out of this stuff” are actually not
vendors but large consultancy companies and consumers of JavaEE technology
that build bespoke, internal or ISV solutions on JavaEE. I would guess
that the global/big regional consultancy companies make many times more
money out of JavaEE and other Java frameworks than the vendors. In
an ideal world we would see Consumers of the technology providing technical
effort in driving forward specifications. Consumers IMHO actually know
more about how the apis should look and work when developing applications
than application server implementers do.
Eclipse Foundation also has a specific membership type
called “Strategic Consumers” https://eclipse.org/membership/become_a_member/membershipTypes.phpfor organisations that are not vendors. I would love to see large consultancy
companies, ISVs and End Users join as Strategic Consumers to drive forward
EE4J and commit or sponsor development effort. Strategic Consumers are
rewarded with reduced membership fees the more developers they commit!
The move to Eclipse Foundation explicitly enables these sort of contributions.
At the end of the day what is the bottom-line impact of a couple of developers
working full time on EE4J for a consultancy company with 100s – 1000s
of developers compared to the benefits they receive through increased knowledge,
influence and productivity?
I encourage everybody out there that works in a large consultancy,
large end user or large ISV to speak to their management about becoming
a Strategic Member. Alternatively they could ensure their corporations
buy support contracts and/or licenses from the vendors so they can contribute
more 😊.
Alternatively they could sponsor individuals or employees to work exclusively
on EE4J.
This is a unique opportunity and a call to arms for all
organisations that benefit from EE4J; vendors, ISVs, consultancy and end
user organisations.
Steve
From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Reza Rahman
Sent: 16 October 2017 16:09
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J
I really hope for the sake of so many people around the
world that depend on or should depend on Java EE that you are right.
It dismays me when people that make/made tons of money
out of this stuff look to people that make no money or pittances to move
the technology forward (in fact in some cases these people sacrifice their
family, free time and day jobs for years to help with this stuff in any
way that they can). This is especially true for technologies like Servlet,
JPA and so many others that Sun/Oracle has invested thousands of full time
employee man-hours over many years for them to get anywhere.
I can guarantee that other than a few die-hards like me
in the short run, no one in the community will contribute anything until
they see a serious commitment from vendors to move this work forward that
at least somewhat matches what Oracle will quite obviously not do any more.
Enough said.
On 10/16/17 5:48 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
Reza,
Mark Little said "...the community has to also step forward and help
make this a success...".
You said "...vendors will still need to do a lion's share of the work
much...".
These are not mutually exclusive statements. Both represent matters of
degree. I have personally been pretty amazed at the energy shown on this
list over the past week.
On 2017-10-16 9:43 AM, reza_rahman wrote:
While I am sure the community can pick some things up
just like they did for Java EE 8, the reality is probably that most folks
are just like me - we will try to do what we can when the demands of the
day job (the stuff that actually helps pay the bills) and family (the stuff
that actually really matters at the end of the day) is done. Realistically,
this probably means about 15-20 hours a week on good weeks.
What this means is that if this effort is to be in any
way competitive, vendors will still need to do a lion's share of the work
much like is the case for Spring, the Lightbend stack, etc. The secret
sauce for Spring in particular is that Pivotal has no hesitation investing
in the Spring stack even when they do not directly make money from it.
If vendors do not have the similar mindset here, I agree it's wise to stop
wasting any more effort, throw in the towel now and move on to bigger and
better things. While an effort driven mostly by community can move forward
for shorts bursts of time, the reality is that it is no match for professionals
getting paid full time to do 50-60 hours of work each week.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T
4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/16/17 8:06 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J
On 12 Oct 2017, at 14:48, reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
More specifically, is Red Hat going to continue to move
CDI and Bean Validation forward?
Yes, where forward movement makes sense.
What about JPA? I don't think anyone in the community
can realistically move that forward. I have similar concerns for Servlet
(and perhaps a more reactive alternative to Servlet). These APIs are so
complex that you really need dedicated folks that work for a vendor full
time to move them forward.
We will remain active in other JSRs and help with new efforts
where it makes sense. But the community has to also step forward and help
make this a success because if it remains solely in the hands of the vendors
then maybe we should just roll everything back.
-------- Original message --------
From: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/12/17 7:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J
Mark,
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:35 AM Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt and for those who haven't been
paying
attention :) Red Hat is committed to working for the continuing
success of Java EE and now EE4J. We intend to put forward various
individuals who may be relevant to lead various JSRs if no other
appropriate community members step forward as well as the JSRs we lead
currently. When the time is right (note, when not if) we'll also work
to ensure EE4J and Eclipse MicroProfile collaborate in a meaningful
manner and hopefully "merge" in whatever way is appropriate and
determined by both communities.
I'm assuming that the last "we" here is the MicroProfile
community and not RedHat, correct?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dev.eclipse.org_mailman_listinfo_ee4j-2Dcommunity&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=R9dtOS3afYnRUmu_zogmh0VnVYl2tse_V7QBUA9yr_4&m=jtAqIic03Y45Dqhx6JRBMqDgL129Pj2pr2yEEWft0tY&s=b6rn7atP74CTww1Z8OFQVtNBCIFDCzv0bOMLIHTqQTs&e=