Jakarta EE Platform Call

Date: 2023-05-09

Present:

• Ed Burns (MSFT)
• Jared Anderson (IBM)
• Emily Jiang (IBM)
• Jim Krueger (IBM)
• Tom Watson (IBM)
• Werner Keil (Committer/Ambassador)
• Jan Westerkamp (iJUG)
• Scott Stark (Red Hat)
• Arjan Tijms (OmniFish)
• Tanja Obradovic (Eclipse Foundation)
• Cesar Hernández (Tomitribe)
• Jean-Louis Monteiro (Tomitribe)
• Lukas Jungmann (Oracle)
• Petr Aubrecht (Payara)
• Dmitry Kornilov (Oracle)
• Kenji Kazumura (Fujitsu)

Agenda and Minutes

Oops! jakartaee/jakartaee-platform

• https://github.com/jakartaee/jakartaee-platform/issues/679
• Ed requested branch master rename to main before proper notification
• Werner Keil brought up the need to care for CI/CD impact
• Conclusion: We agreed to keep it as main and fix the problems with high urgency.
• Ed and Arjan will meet in a separate forum to assess the job to be done to fix it.
  1. Werner: The GH pages are affected: https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/ fix the README

ACTION: Getting all specs through Plan Review

• No replies as of yet.
• Ed and Arjan intend to start contacting project leads individually
  1. emails to the respondents that said yes in column “intend to make an API release for Jakarta EE 11?” in this sheet.
  2. Other means of contacting them
  3. Partition list:
     • Arjan to define partition, Ed takes the ones Arjan does not choose.
     • Please add yourself here to opt out and state that you already have your plan review workflow in progress
       • Scott Stark, CDI has committed to May 30th date
       • Persistence - ongoing planning towards submission of the plan by the end of May ‘23
• Emily observed the discussion of in/out in EE 11 is another matter. When contacting the project leads, make sure to clarify that this contact is not related to the in/out in EE 11 matter.

ACTION: Get Jakarta EE 11 Release Plan DRAFT (source link) beyond DRAFT state

[Emily] Jakarta Security and MP JWT interlock call - call scheduled for every other Thursdays (11th May) on MP calendar 11:00 AM EDT

• https://eclipse.zoom.us/j/85366098724
• A compromise solution was mooted: “bridge” spec. Historical precedent JSF-Portlet Bridge Spec jsr-378.
  1. Jan: the bridge spec must contain the TCK that asserts the compatibility of the relevant components
  2. Arjan outlined the likely contents of the bridge spec

Next week:

• Tanja:
  1. Proposed spec consolidation
  2. Mailing list subscription management
• ~~Arjan: ~~
  1. Start thread on list for proposal and discussion of moving EJB* out of the platform. If sufficient discussion on list, then we can bring it up in the meeting.
  2. We noted this is related to Wave, so let’s wait for that one.