> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:42 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > JavaEE certification is not worth much anymore.
I assume this your opinion… not a fact? Do you have info to back that statement up? I won’t argue that I believe (yes my opinion) that Java EE is waning… but I’m not sure going as far as saying its not worth much any more is a fact. > Recently I learned that another big customer shipped their EE server for 5 > years without passing the Sun TCK and still claimed to be a ‚compliant EE > server’. Interesting… they claimed it “compliant” and no mention of certified. That seems like lawsuit bait to me. Name of server/company that made that claim? I would be interested to know whose legal let that one slip. > We don’t claim anything and just say that we implement the EE7 APIs. That’s > all. At the end TomEE is measured by how stable it runs and how good the > support and community around it is. > -1. Be up front and forth-right with the community. Honestly is always the best policy. Jeff > IF we finally get the TCK then it’s fine as well of course. > > LieGrue, > strub > > >> Am 26.04.2016 um 23:25 schrieb David Blevins <[email protected]>: >> >> Regarding documentation, I’d add further that I’d want to see these >> write-ups in-hand before we start rolling votes. Some items to add to the >> list: >> >> - What is the current status of the various distributions in terms of >> compliance >> - Tested step-by-step instructions specifically for 7 on how to wire in >> Hibernate >> - People will want to know our plans for eventually becoming certified. We >> will need to have a project-agreed statement issued with the release. >> >> I think we need to put some polish on our state and be as professional as >> possible in efforts to curve confusion or blowback from having a TomEE 7 >> release that is not EE 7 certified and in some cases not EE 7 compliant. >> >> Users get quite angry when they feel they had to discover something for >> themselves and weren’t told outright. When they ask on the mailing list and >> get essentially an “of course that doesn’t work” as an answer, it’s no good; >> one part insulting and two parts infuriating :) >> >> Some extra effort here will go a long way. >> >> Regarding Tomcat 8.0 -> 8.5 upgrade concerns: >> >> - I think the original concern of potential issues is valid to the extent it >> might be in our best interest to push out an M4 immediately with Tomcat 8.5. >> We could have that out there while we prepare for a GA. GA is less >> technical and more about communication. We haven’t started the >> communication efforts. We could let users try out Tomcat 8.5 in that time. >> >> >> -- >> David Blevins >> http://twitter.com/dblevins >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> >>> On Apr 25, 2016, at 5:27 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> +1 for 7.0.0, with a proper write up of what to expect from it. >>> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com - @AndyGeeDe - On a small screen device. >>> On 25 Apr 2016 14:24, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> well we never said we'll align JavaEE 7 with TomEE 7 - made it clear in >>>> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Versioning-help-td4677842.html >>>> at >>>> least and probably another thread - so it is milestone until we judged we >>>> want a final. >>>> >>>> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber >>>> <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory >>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> >>>> >>>> 2016-04-25 14:22 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> I mean, it's still a milestone. So should just carry on the 7.0.0-Mx >>>> path. >>>>> 7.1.0 can't really exist until 7.0.0 is released? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com - @AndyGeeDe - On a small screen device. >>>>> On 25 Apr 2016 13:47, "Jonathan Gallimore" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My 2 cts >>>>>> >>>>>> We have 3 milestones of the TomEE 7.0.0. People already using it are >>>>>> expecting a final version, and I agree with that. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> My personal opinion is that in seeing a jump to a 7.1.M1, people will >>>> look >>>>> for a 7.0 GA, and be confused because its missing. I know I would be. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tomcat 8.5 already integrated to master brings an important feature >>>>> HTTP/2 >>>>>> we want to have and offer to our users. Tomcat 8.5 is fully backward >>>>>> compatible with Tomcat 8.x ( x < 5). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So I don't see any issue in having TomEE 7.0.0 final released on the >>>>> master >>>>>> and already integrating Tomcat 8.5. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> + 1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand Romain's point to reflect Tomcat jump in terms of version, >>>>> but >>>>>> having a TomEE 7.1.0 would appear weird if we don't have a TomEE 7.0.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we really want to follow Romain's point and reflect the Tomcat >>>>>> versioning jump, I'd go with first a 7.0.0 based on the M3 with a >>>> couple >>>>> of >>>>>> bugfixes but with Tomcat 8.x (x < 5) and also a TomEE 7.1.0 with Tomcat >>>>> 8.x >>>>>> (x >= 5). >>>>>> >>>>>> So my view is >>>>>> >>>>>> Option 1/ >>>>>> TomEE 7.0.0 with Tomcat 8.x (x >= 5) with HTTP/2 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't have any objection to that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *or* >>>>>> >>>>>> Option 2/ >>>>>> TomEE 7.0.0 with Tomcat 8.x (x < 5) without HTTP/2 >>>>>> + >>>>>> TomEE 7.1.0 with Tomcat 8.x (x >= 5) with HTTP/2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think this is confusing - we already have the concept of "flavours" >>>>> (webprofile, jaxrs, plus, plume) which determine what features are "in >>>> the >>>>> box". Mixing in whether or not you get HTTP/2 in with the version number >>>>> seems confusing to me. >>>>> >>>>> If Tomcat 8.5 is fully backwards compatible with previous Tomcat 8.x >>>>> releases (and I note that JL says it is above), I see no reason for TomEE >>>>> 7.0.0.M4 onwards to use that, and include HTTP/2 support. >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jonathan Gallimore >>>>> http://twitter.com/jongallimore >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>>>> >>>> >> >
