| Re: [ee4j-pmc] Action item: use of the jakarta groupId |
| Hi All, I've updated the permissions on the document so everyone can comment. A reminder of our status we have to release the entire set of API jars again to as the license on all the jars has changed. There is no technical change in these jars. From a binary perspective, they are equivalent and contain no fixes or technical tweaking of any kind. There is no technical reason a developer needs these new jars. If they were happy with the previous license, there is no legal reason they need these jars. The only reason a developer would use these jars would be non-technical and completely by choice. Regardless, we are legally required to do this. This boils down to: - What is the best way to communicate the license and responsible group has changed - What is the best way to communicate there is zero technical change - What will be the simplest thing for future developers An argument can be made the cleanest way to communicate the legal change from Java EE to Jakarta EE, which has no technical change, is to simply change the groupId and not the version. It would communicate both an org change and that the code is identical. We could do the reverse and change the version and not the groupId, but one could make the argument this biases people to think there is a technical and not be aware of the legal/organizational change. Regardless, "how to cause developers the least pain" is always a good conversation to have. As long as we're all on that side, we're good and there are no bad suggestions or thoughts. We need to bear in mind this is the last time certain jars will be released. Stable APIs like JAX-RPC, JSR-77 or JSR 88 haven't changed in years. If we did decide we wanted a universal groupId in the future, we would be once again revisiting the topic of re-releasing the jars for non technical reasons. This is likely not the only "this is our best time to do x" consideration we should think about. There are likely others. Guaranteed we will look back in 5 years and think, "why didn't we do x" on at least a few things we cannot see now.
|