General Date: 2019-12-03
Present:
Another key decision to allow for continued development efforts. [KWS] Will need to propose a vote on the mailing list indicating the recommendation of Java SE 8 as the minimum, but we would support both Java SE 8 and 11. (Steve “volunteered” to post the vote.)
Discussion around Java SE Version: For inclusion in Jakarta EE 9 specification’s apis MUST support running on Java SE 8 and SHOULD support running on Java SE 11. However compatible implementations of the Jakarta EE 9 Web Profile and Full Profile WON’T be required to support Java SE 8 and may certify compatibility on Java SE 11 and/or Java SE 8.
A portable application can use/depend on Java SE 8 APIs -> a compatible implementation must provide the SE 8 APIs when running on 11.
Discussed introducing a Legacy profile that contains all the optional parts.
| Web Profile (opt) | Full Profile (opt) | Legacy Profile (opt) |
|---|---|---|
| Java SE 11 | Java SE 11 | Java SE 8 |
| Contains all Java SE 8 APIs dropped from 11 |
The Legacy profile could possibly be shipped separately later. The question of who will implement the Legacy Profile was raised without being answered.
Also discussed that an alternative to the legacy profile is to keep the “SE8 APIs” in the platform, but optional. “If you ship it, you test it!” No legacy profile needed.
The rest of the agenda was deferred to the next meeting.
[SM] Decide which specifications to prune [SM] Decide which specifications to add
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-platform-dev/msg01123.html
[SM] What should our approach be to obtaining a date from dependent projects? (Kevin has put a request to all the spec projects for a date)
[KWS] Determine a dependency graph for the remaining projects and work out a spreadsheet (or some doc) of all of the pieces of required work.
[KWS] Specification Sizing Exercise https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EN5UEzxFV1Buk7yqdQAweaynWJ3UNn2BjN7blXn9vh4/edit#gid=0
[SM] What tasks do we need to do at the platform level for the release?
Discuss on the mailing list.
[IG] Related to the two bullets above: What steps/tasks are needed for a component spec to do the namespace switch? If we can create such a list, it can be used for the component specs to estimate when they will be able to deliver.
[IG] Can we exclude optional parts of the component specifications in the platform specification(s)
Releasing the platform spec requires TCK passed by an implementation, including optional parts. Eclipse GlassFish will most likely be the only implementation of the optional parts as no vendors are likely to include them in their implementations.
Suggestion: Exclude optional parts from the platform specification Optional parts are still part of the component specifications and will be implemented and tested there