Hi all, Java EE 8 is near release and I'd like to request a simple change on the artifact layout that is published to Maven central. Until Java EE 7 the artifact contained all the API classes packaged

I'm just amazed Paul Krill wrote an accurate and balanced article :-)

Any thoughts on impact from this? http://www.infoworld.com/article/3217347/java/oracle-doesnt-want-java-ee-any-more.html What will this potentially do to this group? Thanks, Jeff

Jens Engel wrote on 08/ 4/17 02:34 AM: Right, which is why I expect many Java EE vendors will be supporting these technologies for quite some time, even after they become optional.

Hi Bill, thanks for your answer. I know that there are new ways for building applications but - well - there are existing applications which cannot easily be transformed into this direction - and I

Jens Engel wrote on 08/03/2017 06:16 AM: The EJB spec should have clear functionality requirements that are independent of the remote protocol being used. If this isn't clear in the EJB spec,

Hi, thanks for your replies. Sorry for the wrong wording. I still remember the rebranding vom J2EE to JEE which took a while to traverse through our company... I will now learn to say Java EE. It's

At least "J2EE" was the correct term at one point, even though it's been obsolete for more than 10 years and we've been calling it "Java EE" longer than it was ever called "J2EE".

And so does a relatively recent version of WebLogic (12.1.3.x, I know there were a few updates, but the 12.x has not been replaced yet) at least in the German translation of something like

I tend to take those less serious than others, but as Java and IT consultant you still stumble over requests to help a project with "J2EE" after all those years ;-)

Hi Jens, As I read it, it just means that application servers won't need to provide remote EJBs based on RMI-IIOP starting from Java EE 8. Remote EJBs will still have the same features, although

Reading it a bit more thoroughly, "Proposed Optional" just means that a future Java EE version could make it optional. It will still be required to work on Java EE 8, but the EG can make it definitely

I’m with you! -Jason

The community does actually try to correct this when they can. Your efforts are not falling on deaf ears. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

Jeff Genender wrote on 08/ 2/17 12:08 PM: I know it's like whack-a-mole, but I can whack those moles while still frying fish. And if all the rest of you would help me whack

Bill, I wouldn’t get unwound about it. You will see JEE, JavaEE, Java EE, etc etc. Its par for the course and your attempts at boiling the ocean will be futile. ;-). Bigger fish to fry… Jeff

Hi Jens. First of all, there is nothing named "JEE". The correct name is "Java EE". "Proposed optional" means that it might be declared optional in the

Hello, I'm trying to understand the impact of sections EE.2.7.4 and EE.6.2.3.6 of the specification declaring RMI-IIOP as proposed optional. Does this just mean that JEE implementations > JEE8 might

Greetings, I've just uploaded Final Draft versions of the Java EE and Web Profile specifications to our Java EE downloads area: https://github.com/javaee/javaee-spec/tree/master/download. These are

I've just uploaded to our project documents area (https://github.com/javaee/javaee-spec/tree/master/download) the drafts of the Java EE 8 Platform and Web Profile specification documents that we plan