Clarify Platform, Web Profile, Core Profile about starter HOT 20 OPEN

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.

from starter.

In reply to #238 (comment):

A brief update - this matter was discussed in the Jakarta EE steering committee. The final decision is to stick to the current verbiage to remain as consistent as possible to the specification language (to be exact: Platform, Web Profile and Core Profile). We will also add a tool tip with the following text for each:

Platform – “Most complete set of Jakarta EE APIs”.
Web Profile – “Jakarta EE APIs intended for web applications”.
Core Profile – “Jakarta EE APIs intended for microservices”.

In that case I suggest that we don't refer to the "Platform" as if it was a profile. It's the Jakarta EE Platform, period. Web and Core are profiles of it. Then we should change the form in the Starter - people shouldn't choose Platform, Web or Core as a profile. It should be either Jakarta EE Platform or one of the profiles.

So, instead of the option:

Jakarta EE profile: (o) Platform ( ) Web Profile ( ) Core Profile

We should have something like:

Use a profile: [ ] (o) Web Profile ( ) Core profile (if checkbox unchecked, profiles disabled)
or
Use a profile: [x] (o) Web Profile ( ) Core profile (if checkbox checked, profiles enabled, and it's possible to choose Web or Core profile)

Alternatively, as @laliwa suggested in point 4 in #238 (comment), remove profile selection altogether and always generate a project for Platform, without an option to choose a profile. Not ideal but dead simple. I would prefer this rather than the current confusing option in Starter, where it looks like Platform is one of the profiles.

from starter.

In index.xhtml file :
changes :
Exmaple :
<h:outputText value="TomEE requires Web Profile, TomEE and Open Liberty require Jakarta EE below 10, GlassFish requires no Docker support and Web Profile or the full platform, WildFly requires Jakarta EE 8 or 10."/>
to
<h:outputText value="TomEE requires Web Profile, TomEE and Open Liberty require Jakarta EE below 10, GlassFish requires no Docker support and Web Profile or the platform, WildFly requires Jakarta EE 8 or 10."/>

This is what you want to do in this issue,
I can work on it, please assign to me

from starter.

Yes, everywhere Full Profile or Full Platform is mentioned, it should be replaced with Platform, or Jakarta EE Platform where appropriate.

Also in the selector in the UI.

from starter.

Hi @ivargrimstad, I understand what you are saying but I worry if we will wind up confusing beginners. What do you think if we said something like “(Full) Platform”. I know it’s not a 100% semantically correct, but it may go a long way to avoid confusing people just starting out. What do you think?

from starter.

Hi @ivargrimstad, I understand what you are saying but I worry if we will wind up confusing beginners. What do you think if we said something like “(Full) Platform”. I know it’s not a 100% semantically correct, but it may go a long way to avoid confusing people just starting out. What do you think?

Let's try to be correct. The use of Full here and there is the thing that is confusing. Consistency is king!

from starter.

I hate to say this but on this one, I don’t know that I fully agree. I’ll start a mailing list discussion on this. I’d like to make sure we are aligned with all the committers. BTW, I think “Platform (Full)” does the job too.

from starter.

I agree with Ivar. If thats what developers will see in all others documentation we better not confuse their heads. If we feel that we need to exaplin more maybe we could have a tooltip with some explanation?

from starter.

I've gone ahead and addressed this for now. I think the mailing list discussion is still valuable. I'd like to see how it pans out for a few more days.

from starter.

As I wrote on the mailing list, I'm strongly in favor of keeping the word "full" somewhere next to the word "Platform". Mainly because the Jakarta EE Platform spec itself uses the term "full platform" to refer to the whole Jakarta EE Platform, as mentioned here: https://jakarta.ee/specifications/platform/10/jakarta-platform-spec-10.0.html#profiles, and because I believe that most of the people out there already use the terms "Jakarta EE Full", "full profile" or "full platform" interchangeably.

While almost nobody uses plain Platform to mean the whole Jakarta EE Platform, mostly people use the plain word "Platform" to mean the umbrella that includes all Jakarta EE profiles.

from starter.

I suggest using the term "full Platform" or "Platform (full)", with "full" in lower case, so that it's clear it's not part of the name of the platform/profile.

from starter.

Obviously, I am in complete agreement with @OndroMih. I think this is a pretty harmless approach that’s doesn’t really hurt anything.

from starter.

One thought
Jakarta EE encompasses things not in the Full profile e.g Jakarta MVC so is a superset of Full profile and likely always will be as specs incubate.
So I align platform in my mind with the whole of Jakarta EE as it's a bit of a nebulous word so I currently have in my mind;

Jakarta EE Platform = everything
Jakarta EE Full = specs included in the Full Profile specification
Jakarta EE Web = specs included in the Web Profile specification
Jakarta EE Core = specs included in the Core Profile specification.

However I could support;
Jakarta EE = everything
Jakarta EE Platform = Platform profile spec
Jakarta EE Web = Web profile spec
Jakarta EE Core = Core profile spec.

I agree coming to some consistency is key. No strong feelings either way.

from starter.

Whatever else we ultimately decide here, I am thinking we definitely need to add tooltips for “Platform”, “Core”, and “Web”. I think that will only help.

from starter.

from starter.

A brief update - this matter was discussed in the Jakarta EE steering committee. The final decision is to stick to the current verbiage to remain as consistent as possible to the specification language (to be exact: Platform, Web Profile and Core Profile). We will also add a tool tip with the following text for each:

• Platform – “Most complete set of Jakarta EE APIs”.
• Web Profile – “Jakarta EE APIs intended for web applications”.
• Core Profile – “Jakarta EE APIs intended for microservices”.

In addition, we will explore adding a link to a page on jakarta.ee that actually explains Platform, Web Profile and Core Profile to beginners. Ideally this page will include a simple graphic.

from starter.

We also discussed adding a graphics showing what Platform, Web and Core Profiles are (with versions or not), like one on the https://jakarta.ee/release/10/. We are also working on short explanation and video about Jakarta EE Platform & both Web and Core Profiles. Marketing Committee is reviewing these documents currently.

from starter.

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.

+1

from starter.

There was a discussion around the heading as well, IIRC.
I think we are going to update the Jakarta EE profile: to something else.
How about changing the heading to something like Jakarta EE specifications: or Jakarta EE umbrella specifications:?

from starter.

The topic of suitable headings was also discussed. It is rather clear the committee voted on the form text and structure the way it stands (including an actual screenshot and alternate mock up). We should accept the well deliberated decision as it clearly stands and move forward with the agreed upon guidance.

While this may not be ideal, it’s workable and I think there are less debatable and more productive things to work on.

from starter.