[cdi-dev] About JSR 330.Next and CDI 2.0

Fri Jul 4 05:46:59 EDT 2014

The CDI spec lead (Red Hat)’s official position for the CDI specification is clearly covered on http://www.cdi-spec.org/download/ 

If you have any questions regarding this, you will need to contact Red Hat legal.

On 3 Jul 2014, at 19:33, Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com> wrote:

> I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no spec here for these 6 annotations.
> So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under the Spec License. 
> 
> So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice and the TCK did and still do.
> 
> Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, you'll notice they all have this in common. 
> Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the  Spec (and for 330 that is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, too. 
> 
> Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License
> >Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms.
> see the link under "license terms"<329.gif>
> 
> JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in the overall Java EE 7 umbrella.
> Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc.
> 
> CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer. 
> 
> Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least Oracle's lawyers) see this. 
> With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK.
> 
> There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and ULA license.
> 
> Cheers,
> Werner
> 
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
> As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot remember anymore what exactly).
> 
> The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here:
> https://code.google.com/p/atinject/
> 
> I have no clue why Oracle  added the 'accept license' radio button on their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong information at best. 
> 
> The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2!
> Thus anyone can take it and enhance it. 
> Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but legally it might not even be necessary.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7
> 
> The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+) 
> 
> Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either.
> 
> So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options:
> 	• Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible
> 	• A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too
> 	• A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now.
> HTH,
> Werner
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public at virtua.com> wrote:
> My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here.
> 
> When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been:
>  - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well
>  - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans
>  - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class)
> 
> At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time.
> 
> Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios :
> 
> 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead:
> Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end.
> 
> 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI:
> The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in  CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features.
> 
> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0)
> 
> Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point.
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev