Also sharing the conversation with the broader community on the
mailing lists.
Thanks Ondro for sharing the conversation with the broader community. Hopefully we will get a bit more independent user feedback on the subtle, but real problem some of us have observed for some time now.
If this remains an unresolved discussion on Friday, I’ll bring it up to the platform. I believe it is legitimate discussion there too.
From: starter-dev <starter-d...@eclipse.org> on behalf of Ondro Mihályi <mih...@omnifish.ee>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 6:42 AM
To: starter developer discussions <start...@eclipse.org>
Subject: Re: [starter-dev] Full vs PlatformHere's another response on Twitter, which suggests using words like "full" or "complete", rather than just Platform: https://twitter.com/kjjaeger/status/1642759395925688324
_______________________________________________I am not so sure. I don’t think things are so draconian that we couldn’t add a simple parenthetical term that may in practically aid usability. I think the least we can do is hear people out.
From: starter-dev <starter-d...@eclipse.org> on behalf of Ivar Grimstad via starter-dev <start...@eclipse.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 6:37 PM
To: starter developer discussions <start...@eclipse.org>
Cc: Ivar Grimstad <ivar.g...@eclipse-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [starter-dev] Full vs PlatformTo be honest, I don't see why this has to be debated any longer.The Platform Project is pretty clear on the terminology. It's not up to this project to change that.
Ivar
_______________________________________________Please consider weighing in on this matter, especially as a committer. I think by this Friday should be sufficient time to resolve this matter in one direction or the other.
From: starter-dev <starter-d...@eclipse.org> on behalf of Ondro Mihályi <mih...@omnifish.ee>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 5:15 PM
To: starter developer discussions <start...@eclipse.org>
Subject: Re: [starter-dev] Full vs PlatformI'm strongly in favor of keeping the word "full" in the option. Probably something like Platform (full), or full Platform, with "full" all in lower case, not "Full".
My reasoning:
Although the name of the full specification is just Jakarta EE Platform, there are several mentions of the word "full" in the Platform spec. Including "full platform" in the section 2.2 Profiles: https://jakarta.ee/specifications/platform/10/jakarta-platform-spec-10.0.html#profiles, which specifically mentions "Jakarta EE platform” umbrella as something that unites all profiles or "the full platform". Here a screenshot, my email continues below:
So, I would say that Platform is generally used for the umbrella over all profiles and full platform, while "full platform" means the whole Jakarta EE Platform. I believe that's how most other people understand it and use the terms. Also a lot of vendors use "Full" to refer to the Jakarta EE Platform, and Web to refer to the Web Profile. Examples:
- Payara Platform Community provides 2 distributions: Full and Web Profile, Payara Embedded provides a "Full Platform Implementation": https://www.payara.fish/downloads/payara-platform-community-edition/
- Glass Embedded uses the word "all", not "full", but mentions "Jakarta EE Full Profile". This is probably wrong, but shows how people often use the word "full": https://glassfish.org/download
- Wildfly provides a single downloadable for both Platform and Web Profile, but inside the installation you can choose the standalone-full.xml configuration to use all features from Jakarta EE Platform, as explained here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32129651/how-to-know-if-wildfly-is-running-with-web-profile-or-full-profile
Ondro
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:23 PM Emily Jiang via starter-dev <start...@eclipse.org> wrote:
Hi Reza,
I had the same comment regarding the `full` instead of `platform`. We had to correct people saying `full` in the past and now I think the correct word `platform` is used across the board. I will vote for `Platfiorm` not saying anything such as `Full` to be consistent with the specification release.
ThanksEmily
_______________________________________________Can folks (especially committers and key stakeholders) kindly weigh in on this one: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/starter/issues/238?
To be honest, I think this is a usability hiccup we basically have with Jakarta EE. We have the notion of profiles, but there isn’t actually a “Full Profile”. It’s just the “Platform”. In my experience, this invariably confuses newcomers.
I tried to reconcile this by simply saying “Full Platform” in the UI. I think either “(Full) Platform” or “Platform (Full)” does the trick too.
What do others think? To be clear, I am not categorically opposed to just saying “Platform”. I don’t think it’s the best but it is workable. It’s certainly what the actual specification says.
P.S.: I opposed this nomenclature almost ten years ago. Bill and Linda had many opinions I never fully agreed with including keeping EJB going much past its expiration date. To me this is yet another one of the Bill/Linda legacies.
starter-dev mailing list
start...@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/starter-dev
--
_______________________________________________Thanks
Emily
starter-dev mailing list
start...@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/starter-dev
starter-dev mailing list
start...@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/starter-dev
starter-dev mailing list
start...@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/starter-dev
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee...@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
I preferred terms as it is on this page Jakarta EE Specifications | The Eclipse Foundation, and WG official published content should be aligned with this, with no "Full" in the term.
I can relate that people who prefer adding "Full" to the Platform, expecting the term to have some self-explaining function to newcomers, but I am afraid it is not possible and not necessary for these reasons:
1\ To the newcomers to java, not only does Platform need to be explained but also Web and Core need it too, the total solution to solve this may be adding "subset" to Web and Core in correspond with "Full" in Platform, obviously no need to do this.
2\ To the ones who already know Java, they already understand the meaning from java docs as "Platform" without "Full"(as mentioned here Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 8 SDK - Release Notes (oracle.com)), if we want to inherit the java users to Jakarta, maybe we should be more aligned with the java term without changing it if is not necessary.
3\ Officially adding Full to the term whether in front of Platform or after with a (full) will add trouble in writing and talking about it, let us be more simplified not complicated.
In fact, furthermore, I have a suggestion new here maybe not be relevant to the current topic which is:
4\ One Jakarta EE to the world.
To simplify and focus our promotion resource on one thing and get the best from it, maybe we do not need to highlight too much the Web and the Core on the release page of the official site, etc., we say to the world Jakarta EE is the cloud-native Java specification, people just need to know one thing is that Jakarta EE is both for web and microservice, but no need to know the detail in profiles in the first time, this will simplify the understanding of Jakarta EE and be good to promote it in the long run.
Web and Core profiles can still have their development plan, certification plan, etc. But no need to show all the content and description in the official content. Vendors or people who want to know the detail, or to certificate, can contact us for more information. So we can focus all of our resources to build only one brand, developers can also talk about one thing and not need to discuss the difference between like this.
Eric (QingYu Meng) Marketing Director
--------------
Primeton Software, Inc. (Stock Code: 688118)
Specialize in - Digital Middle Platform - Digital Transformation Accelerating
------------------ Original ------------------From: "L.walid (PowerM)"<l.w...@powerm.ma>;Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2023 12:52 PMTo: "Jakarta EE community discussions"<jakarta.ee...@eclipse.org>;Cc: "Jakarta EE Ambassadors"<jakartaee-...@googlegroups.com>; "starter developer discussions"<start...@eclipse.org>;Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Full vs Platform
I preferred terms as it is on this page Jakarta EE Specifications | The Eclipse Foundation, and WG official published content should be aligned with this, with no "Full" in the term.
I can relate that people who prefer adding "Full" to the Platform, expecting the term to have some self-explaining function to newcomers, but I am afraid it is not possible and not necessary for these reasons:
1\ To the newcomers to java, not only does Platform need to be explained but also Web and Core need it too, the total solution to solve this may be adding "subset" to Web and Core in correspond with "Full" in Platform, obviously no need to do this.
2\ To the ones who already know Java, they already understand the meaning from java docs as "Platform" without "Full"(as mentioned here Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 8 SDK - Release Notes (oracle.com)), if we want to inherit the java users to Jakarta, maybe we should be more aligned with the java term without changing it if is not necessary.
3\ Officially adding Full to the term whether in front of Platform or after with a (full) will add trouble in writing and talking about it, let us be more simplified not complicated.
In fact, furthermore, I have a suggestion new here maybe not be relevant to the current topic which is:
4\ One Jakarta EE to the world.
To simplify and focus our promotion resource on one thing and get the best from it, maybe we do not need to highlight too much the Web and the Core on the release page of the official site, etc., we say to the world Jakarta EE is the cloud-native Java specification, people just need to know one thing is that Jakarta EE is both for web and microservice, but no need to know the detail in profiles in the first time, this will simplify the understanding of Jakarta EE and be good to promote it in the long run.
Web and Core profiles can still have their development plan, certification plan, etc. But no need to show all the content and description in the official content. Vendors or people who want to know the detail, or to certificate, can contact us for more information. So we can focus all of our resources to build only one brand, developers can also talk about one thing and not need to discuss the difference between like this.
On 4 Apr 2023, at 07:37, Josh Juneau <june...@gmail.com> wrote:
<027D...@150D932E.B6E82B6400000000.jpg>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jakarta EE Ambassadors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jakartaee-ambass...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jakartaee-ambassadors/CAHMFmgf6VQ0dAyu8T%2BH_ntbgNsyTNYFa_f6cUr2KMN2Yw3opjw%40mail.gmail.com.
On 4 Apr 2023, at 16:54, Alasdair Nottingham <alasdair....@gmail.com> wrote:
Looking at the Open Liberty usage on Maven Central Statistics for our Web Profile vs Platform downloads does not support your assertion that interest is low to zero in Web Profile.
AlasdairOn Apr 4, 2023, at 4:42 PM, Arjan Tijms <arjan...@omnifish.ee> wrote:IMHO, web profile is only really interesting for vendors, so that they don't have to implement remote enterprise beans, container managed persistence (in earlier days) and the application client container. At the moment and for a long time there's only been TomEE in this category (I hope at one day be able to certify Piranha Cloud to join TomEE).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jakarta EE Ambassadors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jakartaee-ambass...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jakartaee-ambassadors/65178470-740C-4B41-B680-EF142612DBFF%40gmail.com.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 11:07, mengqy <men...@primeton.com> wrote:
In fact, furthermore, I have a suggestion new here maybe not be relevant to the current topic which is:
4\ One Jakarta EE to the world.
To simplify and focus our promotion resource on one thing and get the best from it, maybe we do not need to highlight too much the Web and the Core on the release page of the official site, etc., we say to the world Jakarta EE is the cloud-native Java specification, people just need to know one thing is that Jakarta EE is both for web and microservice, but no need to know the detail in profiles in the first time, this will simplify the understanding of Jakarta EE and be good to promote it in the long run.
Web and Core profiles can still have their development plan, certification plan, etc. But no need to show all the content and description in the official content. Vendors or people who want to know the detail, or to certificate, can contact us for more information. So we can focus all of our resources to build only one brand, developers can also talk about one thing and not need to discuss the difference between like this.
RR: I think this again comes down to how one chooses to see the somewhat ambiguous concept of the "Platform" and how it relates to profiles. In my view, we should avoid giving what is effectively the "Full Profile" (the term used by Red Hat) significant special status. This may prove to be very important as things like the Core Profile potentially make profiles even more relevant than in the past. That's the thought behind how things are outlined in the UI and Archetype now.
That said, this is also perhaps something that we should not make
a firm decision in the starter project but bring it to to the
Platform mailing list for consensus and guidance for us to
implement.
Looking at the Open Liberty usage on Maven Central Statistics for our Web Profile vs Platform downloads does not support your assertion that interest is low to zero in Web Profile.
AlasdairOn Apr 4, 2023, at 4:42 PM, Arjan Tijms <arjan...@omnifish.ee> wrote:IMHO, web profile is only really interesting for vendors, so that they don't have to implement remote enterprise beans, container managed persistence (in earlier days) and the application client container. At the moment and for a long time there's only been TomEE in this category (I hope at one day be able to certify Piranha Cloud to join TomEE).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jakarta EE Ambassadors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jakartaee-ambass...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jakartaee-ambassadors/CABd%3DrHenV73Fj2hF06ecmUic71_VUTJi3Rh2AwuWxL%3DXmqsJ%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jakartaee-ambassadors/CAE35TCPEgysoZnd08YDXms7-WqX9R0zWnqZgeWF5Vi_M7QMsRg%40mail.gmail.com.