You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘JCP’ category.

What’s Jakarta EE?

Over on Jakarta EE you’ll see our new LJC logo as a Participant member.  This blog post details what Jakarta EE is and what the LJC hopes to achieve within its community!

Jakarta EE is the new brand name for Java EE. For those who missed it, the Java EE platform was recently donated to the Eclipse Foundation (as Eclipse EE4J), the FAQ gives the background to this.

The existing Java EE 8 platform is being migrated to the Eclipse Foundation.  There’s a lot of new build farm activity taking place and the end goals for 2018 are:

  • Q3 2018 – Release Java EE 8.0 by the Eclipse Foundation.
  • Q4 2018 – Release Jakarta EE 8.0 projects (which will be identical code wise to Java EE 8.0) by the Eclipse Foundation.

Both of these releases will be certified against the appropriate TCKs (which are also being open sourced and donated to Eclipse).

In parallel the community at large is looking to the future of Java for enterprise developers.  A future which is lightweight, fast, cloud native and micro services based.  This work has already started and vibrant discussions (for example, around the role of the Servlet container and what types of profiles make sense in a modern world) are taking place on several mailing lists. We highly recommend you sign up to the lists and join in!

LJC’s role in Jakarta EE

The LJC currently holds technical, legal/oversight and advocacy roles at the Java Community Process (JCP) which is the existing standards body for Java EE today.  We hope to continue serving the interests of the day to day Java developer in those capacities at Jakarta EE and have nominated ourselves for the corresponding working groups (Steering, Specification and Marketing).

Next Steps

Are you a day to day Java developer then please come and join us on mailing lists and have your voice heard.  If you’re unsure on what’s going on or are nervous about speaking up, then contact us at the LJC and we’ll be happy to help.


Martijn (on behalf of the LJC Standards Committee)

LJC JCP Committee Meeting 8th March 2018


  • Martijn Verburg
  • Sean Landsman
  • Sabrina Wons
  • Ilan Pillemer
  • Somay Nakhal
  • Abraham Marin-Perez
  • Ingo Hoffmann

Java EE -> Jakarta EE

Java EE has been donated to the Eclipse Foundation and reside as Eclipse EE4J projects, with the brand name of Jakarta EE.

The Committee discussed the pertinent founding documents:

Of particular interest was the Working Group charter where the new Guest Membership level (aimed at Java User Groups etc.) would give entities like the LJC a view into the Jakarta EE specification and steering groups, but would not give entities like the LJC a vote.

Action Item – Create a Poll

The Committee decided to poll the LJC membership and other important JCP / JSR related communities including (but not limited to):

  • LJC Membership
  • Global Java User Groups
  • London JBoss User Group
  • Java Champions
  • Java EE Guardians
  • EE4J Community

The poll will ask whether they still want the LJC to have a voting presence in the new Jakarta EE.  If so then the LJC can explore options to participate at that level, perhaps coming in as a Solutions Member.

Questions in the Poll

The London Java Community (LJC) and SouJava currently represent the global Java User Group community with regards to Java EE standards, i.e. technical review, legal review and voting on whether standards should progress.

With Java EE moving to the Eclipse Foundation (as Jakarta EE), a new Working Group with specification / steering committees governing the future of this technology has been formed.  The LJC would like to understand if Java User Group members) around Java EE technology is still interested in us representing them at Eclipse. So here are some questions!

  1. Do you directly or indirectly develop with or use Java EE technology?
    (if you use Spring, then this is a Yes).
  2. Are you aware that Java EE has moved to the Eclipse Foundation as Jakarta EE?

Please read the following documents before answering the next questions:

  1. Would you like the LJC to have voting status at Eclipse for Jakarta EE?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. I don’t know – it’s too complicated to figure out
    4. I don’t know – I didn’t read the docs I was asked to 🙂

  2. Please leave any further comments

OpenJDK / Java SE

The Committee discussed the pertinent founding documents:

Action Item – Continue Discussing JEP12

A longer discussion on the drawbacks vs benefits of JEP12 is required, including:

  • Impact on independent implementers of Java (e.g Azul, IBM etc).
  • Impact on tooling vendors (e.g App Dynamics, Jetbrains etc).
  • Impact on libraries (e.g ByteBuddy, Spring etc).

Action Item – Test Drive Java 10

Martijn encouraged members to try Java 10 out early and give feedback.  We’ll also encourage the LJC at large to do this.

Action Item – 6 month release cycles and support

The committee discussed the concerns around the 6 month release cycle and the lack of Oracle’s LTS support for OpenJDK.

Other vendors and/or the community could of course support OpenJDK (and variants / versions of it), but that support is likely to be seen as fragmented by the ecosystem.

Adopt OpenJDK Build Farm

Martijn introduced the Adopt OpenJDK Build farm, the new place where the OpenJDK community (including several LJC members) are collaborating on a new build farm for Java to be shared and used by the community at large:


We voted “Yes” for the re-submission of this specification within.  Jigsaw and Java 9 will represent a solid foundation for a new evolution of the Java platform, one that is nimbler, more lightweight and more secure.  Is this work complete?  No, there are still outstanding issues and feature requests to go, especially as the ecosystem learns to use the new modulepath and friends.  But the basis is sound and we think a large minority will take up the new module system once Java 9 goes GA.

The results of the vote on the reconsideration ballot (Public Review) for this JSR are here:

We voted no the first time around because we wanted to see final consensus on the last few outstanding issues as well as some bedding in time of recent, far-reaching consensus decisions.

Our official comment

The LJC votes yes and echos IBM’s thanks to Oracle (as the specification leader) and those in the JSR 376 Expert Group who dedicated their time to reworking and clarifying areas of the specification that we were concerned about.

The LJCs concerns ( over interoperability with the Java ecosystems defacto build tool / module repository (Apache Maven) have been addressed as have the concerns over the ability for independent implementations of the compiler to be built (noticeably ejc).

The disposition of outstanding issues as agreed amongst the Expert Group was handled really well and it was heartening to see the evident collaboration as described in the detailed minutes of the EG’s meetings in the past month.

We see this release of JPMS as the strong foundation for a new Java SE platform architecture, and expect to build upon this with feedback and experience from Java User Group members.

Further Notes

The specific technical details of what was agreed and what was deferred are in the minutes:

Some highlights include:

  • Agreement on version name format(s).
  • Agreement on rules around Automatic Module Naming and a guide on how to best use those (important for the Maven ecosystem).
  • Dealing with multiple versions of the same module was deferred.
  • Agreement on relaxing Strong encapsulation as a default (means fewer apps will break out of the box, but get a warning instead).
  • Tidying up on some keyword usage (allowing the Eclipse compiler to be built).

We think the Spec lead and EG did a great job in coming together to resolve the outstanding concerns and hope that this can be a model for further collaboration over particularly far-reaching / complex part of the Java ecosystem development going forwards.

Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP Committee, on behalf of the LJC)


We voted No because we want to see final consensus on the last few outstanding issues as well as some bedding in time of recent, far-reaching consensus decisions.  No we don’t think this should or will delay Java 9 significantly, we expect a re-submission and eventual “Yes” vote to this specification within 30 days, please see the JCP Process Document for how this works.  No, we don’t think JPMS/Jigsaw is fundamentally flawed.  Yes we want extra time and thought going into JPMS by the wider ecosystem (and its authors) as this new module system will impact Java far more than the move to generics in Java 5.

The results of the vote on the Public Review for this JSR are here:

Our official comment

We echo SAP’s comments in that we absolutely recognize the tremendous achievements and the great work that has been carried out until now by the EG members as well as (and especially) by the Spec Lead himself.

The LJC is voting “No” on the spec *as it was submitted* at the start of the voting period. During the 14 day voting period, great progress was made by the Spec Lead and the EG to reach consensus on some very difficult issues such as #AutomaticModuleNames. However, there are still on going conversations on some of those issues and there simply has not been enough time spent by the ecosystem to discuss some of the new designs in enough depth or enough time spent implementing and testing prototypes based on the latest spec, e.g. The Eclipse ejc compiler or the latest Automatic Module Naming design in Maven.

If required, we very much look forward to being able to vote ‘YES’ in <= 30 days on a version that has had that little bit of extra time for the EG (and the ecosystem) to discuss / implement / test some of these difficult spec items. Certainly the last 14 days have shown that consensus can be reached even when viewpoints have started in opposing corners, and we think another short time period to really bed in the last sticking points is needed.

Further Notes

We voted “No” based on careful technical analysis of JPMS, the RI (Jigsaw), comments on the mailing list as well as out in other public forums.  We then put the existing specification to the test on a Java 9 hackday along with the Virtual JUG and ~15 JUGs worldwide.  The conclusion was that JPMS still has some outstanding issues to be resolved or issues that (despite having recent resolutions), were still not bedded in the minds and/or prototypes of the larger ecosystem.

For our membership, interoperability with the Maven build ecosystem and the ability to build an alternative compiler implementation (i.e. Eclipse’s ejc compiler) is paramount.  Although consensus is rapidly forming around those two items, our membership felt that they needed some extra time before they felt comfortable with voting “Yes”.

This is what the JCP is for (no, not just politics)

Casual observers and some parts of the tech media will likely come to the conclusion that this is all just about big company politics. Recent public blog posts and open letters will have fuelled that sentiment, but we urge people to read the comments accompanying “No” votes.

Although Oracle are the stewards of Java, the JCP Executive Committee (EC) is meant to act as guide for the Java ecosystem as a whole and we feel strongly that it is working as intended in this case.

What next?

The Spec Lead (Mark Reinhold) has publicly stated that if it needs more time, then it will get more time, so we expect to see a revised spec within the 30 days and expect to vote “Yes” in good conscience and not delay Java 9 (the spec).
Martijn’s Personal View 
There was a lot deep dive technical analysis and tough discussion in the past two weeks with a lot of smart, passionate technologist’s who all love Java.  This cannot be a bad thing :-).  That said, I’m tired and will now have a sleep before Devoxx UK!
Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP Committee, on behalf of the LJC)

Attendeed: Martijn Verburg, Sean Landsman, Ingo Hoffmann, Omar Bashir

  • Welcomed Omar as a new member!
  • Discussed JSR 363 – Units and Measures. Omar pointed out that it looked good overall but he had some concerns about the verbosity / boilerplate nature of having to use Factories and Builders in order to get going. He noted that the Java 6 compatibility made sense (IoT, Android and other older platforms). Martijn commented that DI of some sort might help tackle the verbosity, but that the Spec Lead and EG had likely discounted that in order to allow it to be used across a wider set of projects.  Omar will send in final feedback by Sunday the 7th.
  • Discussed the vote for JSR 380 – Bean Validation 2.0.  Unanimous yrs, Ingo noted it was early stages and that we should have a more careful review when there was the beginnings of a RI.
  • Discussed the vote for JSR 367 – JSONB – Group looked at outstanding issues and send a message to the Spec Lead over a concern that JSONPointer support had not been addressed.  Will wait until Sunday evening (7th) before casting final vote.
  • Discussed nominations for JCP awards. Unit of Measure and Jigsaw seemed to be the outstanding JSRs, more research required on the Adopt a JSR award.
  • Martijn will give feedback at the next meeting about the Aug 7th EC phone conference, covering Java EE 8 as Oracle sees it.


Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP Committee)

Attendeed: Martijn Verburg, Sean Landsman, Ingo Hoffmann, Abraham Marin-Perez

  • Welcomed Abraham and Ingo as new members!
  • Discussed and status of JavaEE 8 – the LJC will officially support MicroProfile and run hackdays against vendor implementations of the profile.  The LJC is waiting until JavaOne in Sept to see what is happening with Java EE 8 but hopes that Oracle will join the collaborative MicroProfile effort.
  • Discussed JSRs under review and agreed to go away and do more research and send feedback to the list:JSR 380 – Bean Validation 2.0 – JSR Review
    Appears on the ballot: 26 July 2016
    URL for proposal: 362 – Portlet Specification 3.0 – Early Draft Review 2
    Last day of review: 12 September 2016
    URL for EDR 2 materials:

    JSR 367 – Java API for JSON Binding – Public Review
    Appears on the ballot: 26 July 2016
    URL for Public Review materials:

    JSR 363 – Units of Measurement API – Proposed Final Draft
    URL for PFD materials:

  • Discussed an IP and copyright of APIs proposal that was put to the EC.  Decided that further in depth study was required before commenting.
  • Martijn will arrange the next meeting before the Aug 7th EC phone conference


Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP Committee)

TLDR: Go to and join the mailing list there and fill out the survey!

Recently the LJC officially put its support behind MicroProfile, a new open source project and collaborration between Java EE vendors and the developer community to provide enterprise developers comfortable with Java EE a way to move into the microservices space.  The LJC will host hackdays as Microprofile gets closer to its first GA release in September 2016.

The recent interview with JAX Enter sums up the current state nicely, so I’ve repeated it here verbatim.

JAXenter: Red Hat, IBM, Tomitribe, Payara and the London Java Community joined forces to create MicroProfile. What are the objectives of this initiative?

Martijn Verburg: The initial goal is to provide developers who are most comfortable with enterprise Java (Java EE if you will) a starting point to work with microservices in a non vendor specific way (which is what they’re used to from the Java EE world).  The aim is then for the developer community to actually drive what they feel they need in microservices runtime/API, so instead of the vendors ‘guessing’ that you might want security, or logging or discovery or whatever. It’ll be up to the MicroProfile community to help define what should go in and what should stay out.

Some open standards will likely fall out of this to give businesses confidence about the longevity and the vendor neutrality, which is something they’ve enjoyed and trusted from the Java EE ecosystem.

JAXenter: What is the London Java Community’s take on the current state of Java EE? How can MicroProfile bring it forward?

Martijn Verburg: Java EE has clearly stalled with the lack of progress on Java EE 8. Although many of us feel that the time for the monolithic Java EE platform standard is possibly over, there’s still enormous value in having standards around key pieces of Java Enterprise technology. Enterprise Java does after all still drive billions of dollars worth of IT business and directly or indirectly drives trillions of dollars in the global economy.

JAXenter: How is the goal of MicroProfile different from Java EE Guardians’? What is the London Java Community’s contribution to this new initiative?

Martijn Verburg: The goal of MicroProfile is to bring collaboration around microservices for enterprise Java developers.  This is very separate to the Guardians group, who are advocating Oracle to put resources back into the Java EE 8 platform.

JAXenter: How can MicroProfile push forward microservice innovation in Enterprise Java?

Martijn Verburg: By asking the community what they want and releasing early and often.  Then standardizing on what the community and the vendors feel are the right APIs that need longevity.

JAXenter: Do you hope to generate a reaction from Oracle?

Martijn Verburg: We hope they join in the initiative!  Oracle has shown that it can lead in open source via OpenJDK and we know that like all vendors, they have an interest in microservices.  Some common ground between all of the vendors and the community will help ensure that enterprise Java is well placed for the challenges going forwards.

JAXenter: How can the community participate in the MicroProfile effort?

Martijn Verburg: By going to and joining the mailing list there, filling out the survey and shortly contributing code!

Hi all,

We’ve been remiss in posting our thoughts on our official votes for various Java standards that go through the  Java Community Process (JCP) Executive Committee (EC). So in order to get back into the swing of things we thought we’d start with the all important Java 9 SE vote!

For JSR 379 – Java SE 9 (See full results from all voters) we voted Yes for the JSR Review Ballot with the following comment:

We are very happy with the technical content and have high hopes that it will increase the longevity of Java in the age of containers and smaller devices.

We are disappointed with the relatively late release of this JSR. Since much of the RI and TCK has already been built, it makes it much harder for independent implementations to reach the market in a timely manner.

We see that Red Hat, IBM, Google and Oracle will likely make up the EG and we hope to also see wider participation from other JVM vendors.

In terms of technical merit we’re broadly happy.  There are certainly issues with Jigsaw vs the ‘real world’, which was anticipated and hopefully will be mitigated by further early testing of JAva 9 and some compromises made by both the authors of libraries, frameworks and products and the authors of the Jigsaw module system.  The rest of Java 9 offers up loads of exciting new features including HTTP 2 support, JShell and a host more.

To add some further insight on the other half of our comment, we need to explain the current challenge we have with OpenJDK vs the JCP standardardization process.  In short, OpenJDK is the GPLv2 licensed open source project that is the Reference Implementation (RI) for Java SE.  Oracle and most (not quite all) other vendors create their commercial ‘Java’ releases from OpenJDK.

However, in order to release a ‘Java’ which can be called Java, you must pass the Technical Compatibility Kit (TCK) which is produced as part of the Java Specification Request (JSR). If the JSR is delivered late on in the development of OpenJDK it puts vendors who produce a non OpenJDK based implementation at a massive disadvantage and even puts the vast majority basing their implementations off OpenJDK at a disadvantage in terms of getting their product complaint and to the market.

There’s also no real mechanism for the community to push back against proposed changes via the JCP, as so much work has already been done in OpenJDK. That is, what’s in OpenJDK is effectively fait accompli.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing as OpenJDK generally speaking provides that highly collaborative open source environment which allows for plenty of community feedback and influence (it’s still nominally Oracle controlled, but it’s about as good as you can get given single vendor ownership).

It does place OpenJDK and the JCP at odds though and we look forward to working with Oracle and the JCP to resolve that (there are some early proposals being discussed).


Martijn (On behalf of the LJC JCP Committee)

Hi all,

After much thought and consideration the LJC JCP Committee have cast their votes for the JCP elections (Look for the Executive Committee Elections link at  We’re making our vote public and will give our reasons according to the openness and transparency requirements for the committee.

The list of nominees for the seats are as follows (link also contains useful recordings and notes from the nominees):

There are 8 ratified seats and 5 open seats up for election.  Although it may seem like the ratified seats are shoe-ins since to the number of candidates == the number of available seats, enough no votes can make a candidate ineligible to take the seat.

Ratified Seat Vote

Freescale, Gemalto M2M GmbH, Goldman Sachs, MicroDoc, SAP, Software AG, TOTVS and V2COM all get yes votes – they are important players in the Java ecosystem.

In particular they represent:

  1. Strength in the emerging IoT market (Gemalto, Freescale and MicroDoc)
  2. The increasing importance of the BRIC economies on the ecosystem (TOTOVS and V2COM)
  3. The massive impacts on SE and EE platforms today (SAP, Software AG and Goldman Sachs).

In short, we think Oracle have chosen well and see no reason not to ratify these candidates.

Open Seat Vote

This was a very close vote as the strength of candidates was unprecedented. Here are our yes votes:

  1. Azul Systems – Azul is one of the few JVM vendors out in the marketplace. Their inclusion is vital in order to keep Java SE as an open standard and Gil Tene’s insights around thorny legal issues have proved to be invaluable to the EC.
  2. ARM Systems – The world needs Java to run well on ARM, they should be involved in evolving Java, simple as that!
  3. Hazelcast – Represent both strength in the EE space (JSR 107 and 347 for caching and distributed data grids) and also push the SE envelope with the requirements for their core product. Greg Luck is a long time experienced member of the JCP process, his expertise would be welcome.
  4. Waratek – Bring innovative new thinking about the JVM with regards to scalability and security in cloud environments with their multi-tenanted VM. As with Azul, it would be great to see other JVM vendors on the EC to keep help keep Java modern.
  5. Morocco JUG – Representing the voice of developers in the Middle East and Africa.  It’s estimated that a majority of new developers will come from these nations over the coming years and so they should continue to be included at the highest levels of Java.
  6. Geir Magnusson Jr – Geir was instrumental in helping shape Java in the early years of its existence and brings a wealth of experience and understanding of the broader Java ecosystem.  It’s great to see him back!

There were lots of other worthy candidates, but we feel these 5 candidates represent the best balance to face the challenges of the industry in 2015.


Although the Committee has voted for and endorsed these particular candidates, any LJC member who is also a JCP member can (and no doubt will!) vote any way they wish to.


Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP committee

The LJC is voting No on the Final Approval Ballot for JSR 48  (WBEM Services Specification). As this decision may surprise the community, we wanted to ensure that the reasons behind this are fully understood.

The No vote is purely a procedural measure. During the discussion of this JSR, it came to light that the license that the Reference Implementation conflicts with the terms of the JSPA and is therefore not valid. Were the Final Approval Ballot to pass, the resulting standard would be impossible to implement and useless to the community.

The LJC, along with IBM, SAP and the JCP PMO, met with the Spec Leads and resolved the issues around licensing. The EC has agreed that the Final Approval Ballot must fail, and EC members will accordingly vote it down. The JCP process contains a contingency measure for circumstances like these, known as a Final Approval Reconsideration Ballot.

This Ballot allows the Spec Leads to correct any problems & resolve concerns before resubmitting within 30 days – effectively a second chance. The Spec Leads indicated that they intended to do so, and to resubmit the JSR with a modified RI license.

During the meeting with the Spec Leads, some ecosystem questions regarding the health of the ecosystem for this technology, and the number of participants were also addressed. The Spec Leads were able to point to a wide variety of companies and projects participating, so on this basis, the LJC is happy to support this JSR.

A number of minor technical questions were also discussed – and the Spec Leads agreed to address some of them by releasing the source code for the TCK for this JSR – and to produce a new JSR for a version 2.0 after the initial release to fix any bugs found by the community.

The LJC JCP Committee would like to thank the Spec Leads for making time to meet and address concerns at very short notice, and for their perseverance in completing the JSR process.

As always, if you’re an LJC member and interested in our work in the standards & specification space – please contact one of the committee – we’re very happy to talk about our ongoing projects, and there are always ways to get involved.

What is the LJC

The London Java Community (LJC) is a group of Java Enthusiasts who are interested in benefiting from shared knowledge in the industry. Through our forum and regular meetings you can keep in touch with the latest industry developments, learn new Java (& other JVM) technologies, meet other developers, discuss technical/non technical issues and network further throughout the Java Community.