Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE

[Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike.

Speaking solely on behalf of Red Hat (not the PMC) I can tell you that
we are continuing to invest in Eclipse MicroProfile and Eclipse EE4J
marketing. It would be inappropriate for me to go into specific
details but I can also say that Red Hat is investing further $ into
the Eclipse Foundation specifically around EE4J to help try to ensure
it's success.

But let me repeat here: the success of EE4J is not going to be based
solely on $ contributed by vendors (big or small) or individuals (with
big or small pockets); I'd say that >> 50% of the success will be
based upon the community (vendors, users, contributors etc.) rallying
around and pulling in the same direction.

Mark.


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Mike Croft <mike.croft@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Mark, your views here have been very helpful. Werner's point about
> the transition from JBoss -> WildFly for the open source project is also
> very relevant and speaks to the importance of the new brand and how it is
> marketed.
>
>
> My personal view is that the success or otherwise of the new brand relies
> very heavily on what the brand is and how it is marketed.
>
>
> In Will's original note, he said:
>
>
> Oracle has previously communicated that it intends to work with the EE4J
> community to:
>
> 1) Define a branding strategy for the platform, including a new name for
> Java EE to be determined.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> We will work with the EE4J community to promote the new brand.
>
>
> I would be interested to know more about the intentions of Oracle and others
> on the PMC to contribute *marketing* effort to EE4J. Have there been any
> discussions around this?
>
>
> The MicroProfile recently went through a minor rebranding which involved the
> collaboration of a few vendors and then an open vote. It was led very ably
> by Cesar, though other vendors contributed.
>
>
> My question is - who is planning to spearhead the marketing effort for the
> new EE4J brand, and is there a commitment  from all PMC members to
> contribute time to marketing?
>
>
> I don't think a rebranding will necessarily hurt Java EE, but a poor effort
> may. The engineering effort will likely be stalled for many projects while
> legals are sorted, but the marketing effort is, in my opinion, even more
> important at this stage and should be given equal emphasis.
>
>
> [again, all the above are my personal views ;-) ]
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Croft
>
> Java Middleware Consultant
>
> Payara Services Limited
>
>
>
> Payara Server: Derived from GlassFish with 24/7 Production Support
> W: www.payara.fish | T: +44 207 754 0481 ; +1 415 523 0175 | Twitter:
> @Payara_Fish
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Payara Services Limited, Unit 11, Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine
> Road, Malvern, Worcestershire, WR14 3SZ
>
> ________________________________
> From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mark Little
> <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 17 January 2018 11:01:01
> To: EE4J community discussions
>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on
> Java EE Naming and Packaging
>
> That is correct. And I will admit we had a lot of apprehension when we
> decided to rename JBossAS to something else and again when we decided to go
> with WildFly. However, it all worked out well for us. I will state that it
> wasn’t easy and it took trust and engagement on both sides (Red Hat and the
> community). I know at the time that some people in Red Hat and in community
> were against the rename to WildFly and maybe still are to a degree, but
> everyone was able to put that behind them and move on collaboratively.
> That’s what I’m hoping we can do here: yes, some people/groups don’t like
> what they’ve heard from Oracle but I truly believe it’s something we address
> by accepting it and moving on positively rather than focussing on the
> negative aspects.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2018, at 10:53, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Representing a company that has a long history of changing brand and project
> names, correct me if I'm wrong, but neither calling EJBoss JBoss in the
> beginning nor other changes like abandoning the Seam project strain or the
> more recent introduction of Wildfly caused the community to desert Red Hat
> and its open source efforts?;-)
>
> Werner
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:46 AM, <ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
>         ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         ee4j-community-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming
>       and Packaging (Mark Little)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:46:43 +0000
> From: Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter
>         on Java EE Naming and Packaging
> Message-ID: <5B08A896-CF76-4BA4-9935-D95930B4D2FC@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I?m fairly sure I?ve said this before on some lists and also at JavaOne 2017
> when we discussed some of this in various meetings but I will repeat here:
> whilst I would definitely have preferred to keep the javax namespace for new
> specifications and to perhaps retain the Java EE name for the branding, I
> understand Oracle?s position. Related to that, I therefore know that no
> amount of energy expended on trying to change these two things will result
> in a different outcome. However, I think what Oracle have done to this point
> in moving Java EE to Eclipse is much more important than a brand name or a
> Java package name and collectively we should expend that energy in moving
> the code and community forward collaboratively. EE4J will not fail because
> it?s not branded Java EE. EE4J will not fail because new specifications
> cannot be done under the javax package. EE4J will fail if we spend too much
> time away from driving these specifications forward and adding new
> specifications to adapt to chang
>  es in the developer space.
>
> Therefore, whilst I understand what the Guardians have requested, I feel
> that we are at a point where we should focus on the positive aspects of what
> Oracle have done and build on those. Together we move EE4J forward and
> together we can make it a success!
>
> Mark.
>
>
>> On 16 Jan 2018, at 15:04, will.lyons@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> Hello -
>>
>> Reza Rahman has recently posted a Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE
>> Naming and Packaging
>> <https://javaee-guardians.io/2018/01/02/joint-community-open-letter-on-java-ee-naming-and-packaging/>.
>> Our feedback is given below - most of it is context explaining our
>> direction.   We hope it is helpful.
>>
>> Oracle has previously communicated that it intends to work with the EE4J
>> community to:
>> 1) Define a branding strategy for the platform, including a new name for
>> Java EE to be determined.
>> 2) Enable use of existing javax package names, and enable extension of
>> existing javax namespaces (e.g. javax.servlet.*) to enable compatibility and
>> evolution of existing APIs.  ?>
>> 3) Use a different namespace naming convention, i.e. different from
>> ?javax.*?, for net new APIs/technologies.
>>
>> Note that doing the above remains work in process, but it remains our
>> intent.
>>
>> The open letter requests that Oracle and other EE4J stakeholders work
>> together:
>> 1) To allow the new platform to retain the Java EE name?>
>> 2) To allow use of existing ?javax? packages for existing technologies?>
>> 3) To allow use of the ?javax.enterprise? package for new technologies?>
>> ?>
>>
>> Oracle has already expressed its intent to do what is requested in point
>> #2 above.   This would allow for compatibility between EE4J releases and
>> existing Java EE releases at the package level.   We will focus on points #1
>> and #3 below.   Why not allow use of the Java EE name, and why not allow use
>> of the javax.enterprise namespace for all new EE4J technologies?
>>
>> The industry has changed since the Java EE development process was
>> originally created. The process was not seen as being nimble, flexible or
>> open enough.  Our shared goal is to create a more nimble process, with more
>> flexible licensing, and more open governance that is not dependent on a
>> single vendor.  We believe this will encourage more participation and
>> innovation.  We see general support for this new direction from across the
>> community.?> ?>
>>
>> This new direction implies many changes, starting with a change in the
>> technology development process.   The Java EE process, or to be more
>> specific, the JCP process that was used for Java EE development, is a highly
>> structured process that grants specification leads significant influence
>> over how technologies are specified and implemented.  The EE4J process will
>> be different.  It will be more open.  Single vendors including Oracle will
>> continue to contribute, but will no longer have the same level of influence
>> over how new EE4J technologies evolve.  We believe there is consensus that
>> this is a positive step for the community.
>>
>> This new development process drives choices around use of the Java EE
>> name, and use of the javax.* package names for new technologies.  The Java
>> EE and javax.* names leverage the Java trademark, and indicate that the
>> source of these technologies is Oracle and community processes managed by
>> Oracle. As a critical identifier of the source of products to our users, we
>> must continue to reserve use of such names using the Java trademark to
>> serving that fundamental source identifying function.  This will help us to
>> maintain the Java trademark, which is in Oracle?s interest and in the
>> community?s interest.  We recognize there are likely to be requirements to
>> create new versions of existing Java EE specifications that were already
>> created using the existing JCP process.  We believe we can work out an
>> approach to allow use of javax.* names for extensions to these existing
>> specifications in order to accommodate these requirements.   However, if we
>> adopt a new process for new EE4J technologies
>  , as is desired by the community, we believe we must require that a new
> namespace be used for the new EE4J technologies that are developed using
> that process, and a new brand (other than Java EE) that includes these new
> technologies.  There is a tradeoff here, and we believe that the net benefit
> of the new process warrants the adoption of a new namespace for new EE4J
> technologies, and a new brand.
>>
>> We will work with the EE4J community to mitigate continuity concerns that
>> accompany this change.   We are making it very clear that EE4J will be an
>> evolution of existing Java EE 8 technologies:
>> ?    We are contributing our existing GlassFish Java EE 8 Reference
>> Implementation sources to EE4J.
>> ?    We will contribute our existing TCKs.
>> ?    We are intending to allow certain uses of existing javax packages as
>> those packages evolve for compatibility.
>> ?    We are intending to allow use of existing specification names for
>> component specifications.
>> ?    We are building an initial EE4J implementation that is intended to be
>> both Java EE 8 and ?EE4J? compatible.
>> ?    We will work with the EE4J community to promote the new brand.
>>
>> These are positive steps we can take.
>>
>> We support the efforts of the EE4J Project Management Committee to make
>> branding recommendations to the Eclipse Foundation.  We encourage the
>> community to support the effort as well, and extend thanks to all for the
>> continued interest in Java EE and EE4J technologies.   And we hope to
>> deliver soon more new projects with GlassFish sources contributed to EE4J!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Will
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-community mailing list
>> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
>> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community>
>
> ---
> Mark Little
> mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> JBoss, by Red Hat
> Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale
> Road, Co. Cork.
> Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell
> Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
> Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill,
> Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20180117/008f452e/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 5, Issue 54
> *********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ---
> Mark Little
> mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> JBoss, by Red Hat
> Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale
> Road, Co. Cork.
> Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell
> Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
> Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill,
> Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>