| Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming and Packaging |
|
"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 agree totally. I feel that time commitments are far more important so that, for example, the future brand name that is chosen is chosen because there are lots of potential ways to brand it (e.g. with Java there is the coffee "theme") rather than because it is something that includes "EE" in it or the domain name was easy to register.
My hope is that, despite a near guarantee that some may like the new brand while others hate it (nothing is ever universal), the new brand is something that a professional marketing team (with community support) can really get their teeth into
Mike Croft Java Middleware Consultant Payara Services Limited
Payara Server: Derived from GlassFish with 24/7 Production Support
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 13:39:46 To: EE4J community discussions Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming and Packaging 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 |