|Yes... I agree with Werner in this instance. As modularity becomes a central component of the JVM and with the breadth of frameworks and HTTP based APIs, picking and choosing what goes in will become the norm. But for this pass, I guess we can keep it status quo.|
However... with that said... we all really should be thinking about the entire upgrade compatibility issues and make a break to switch the paradigm at some point in the future. Its ok to start thinking about deprecating and not always having to be backward compatible with everything. Otherwise we will always have our boots stuck in the mud because we are holding on to older tech. Just my .02.
On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Werner Keil wrote:
I guess the "at this time" is what I'd be able to agree and live with, too.
However, Java 8 with modularity as proposed and drafted so far will mean, there have to be much finer grained "Profiles" not just for EE.
And compatibility shall be driven by a proper dependency tree, but not impose overhead of useless modules.
If somebody won't use JSP, but JSF or Spring instead, they shall not carry the burden of JSP, unless they use a module or library dependent on it.
And if they just use SOAP, JAX-RS may also not be required and vice versa.
Am 23.02.2012 16:17 schrieb "Jason T. Greene" <jason.greene@...
I am also against a slimmer web profile at this time. I really think we got it right. If you compare with the bottom proposal the only difference is removing JSF, EJB Lite and JPA. All of these can be easily added by a pure servlet vendor (ok easy is a bit of an exaggeration). Both Tomcat (with TomEE) and Resin seemed to have no problem adjusting. I bet Jetty eventually will offer a web profile set as well.
On 2/23/12 8:50 AM, reza_rahman@... wrote:
-1. We already talked about this and it is a bad idea that weakens
I have a few concerns with this. First of all, JSPs are not evolving : it is a poor UI framework (no Ajax and so on) and is not a templating fwk either. Second, except if I'm missed something on Servlet 3.1, we don't have a simple controller to build MVC web apps. With just Servlets and JSPs, we miss the controller. I remember that the JAX-RS 1.1 and Servlet 3.0 expert group talked about it, but I think nothing happened.
compatibility (the whole point of the JCP/Java EE).
Feb 23, 2012 06:22:13 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I remember back on the Java EE 6 expert group we talked about having
a "minimal profile" with only Servlet& JSPs (I remember Rod Johnson
being interested in such profile, Roberto Chinicci even wrote a few
blog posts about it :
For me, such a minimal profile would make sense with a proper
templating framework, _expression_ Language and a simple servlet
controller (à la Spring MVC). My 2 cents Antonio
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:03, Jason Porter wrote: I'd also like to
suggest a simple Servlet or Basic profile. It would include servlets,
JSP, EL, CDI and JAX-RS. Essentially tomcat / jetty with CDI and
JAX-RS integrated. This would give a very powerful programming
environment (namely CDI and JAX-RS) as a strong base and also allow
our friends developing tomcat and jetty to join in and be a Java EE
compliant server! Oh, and JSF would then run purely in a Java EE
environment, no more "pseudo EE container" aka Servlet container.
Jason T. Greene
JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat