Jakarta RPC

The EMO is using this issue to track the progress of project creation. Help regarding the process can be found in the Eclipse Foundation Project Handbook.

Project

Project proposal: Jakarta RPC

Project: Jakarta RPC

Basic Information

• License: Apache 2.0
• Patent License: Compatibility Patent License

Pre-creation Checklist

To be completed by the EMO

• Project scope is well-defined
• Top-level Project selected
• PMC accepts the project (PMC has replied with +1)
• License(s) approved
• Project name trademark approved. Trademark transfer agreement available here in case you need it.
• Project lead(s) identified
• Committers identified
• Committers have Eclipse Foundation Accounts
• Eclipse Architecture Council mentor identified
• Two weeks of community review completed

This being a specification project that will operate under the purview of the Jakarta EE Working Group, the Steering Committee must agree to the choice of patent license, and a Specification Committee ballot to approve the project creation must run for at least one week. The default patent license for the Jakarta EE Working Group is the Implementation Patent License, so their approval is required to proceed under the Compatible Patent License.

• Patent license selection confirmed Jakarta EE Working Group Steering Committee has voted on and agrees to the exceptional use of the Compatible Patent License
• Specification Committee ballot initiated
• Specification Committee ballot concluded successfully

Project resources to be created

Project Lead involvement needed

• The project lead has confirmed the following project resources are correct in the comment's section
• The project lead has requested a project website repository in the comments

GitHub

• Project repository: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/rpc
• Project mailing list: https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/jakartarpc-dev

Post-creation Checklist

To be completed by the EMO

• Project created
• Project provisioned (including at least one committer)
• Project lead(s) designated
• Architecture Council mentor designated
• Initial Contribution submitted for review by the IP Team
• Committer orientation completed

Approximately three months after successful completion of this creation review, the EMO will initiate a progress review.

changed due date to October 27, 2021

added Project Proposal Review Request Trademark Approval Request labels

changed the description

@mdelgado624 Thanks for starting the review process.

I'm wondering if it makes sense to rename the project to make its parallelism to JAX-RS more obvious and eliminate potential trademark issues around gRPC. Looking at proposed repo name (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/grpc), it does seem a bit too "top-level" and implies this is another flavor of gRPP, when it is nothing of the sort.

Maybe JAX-RPC, with a project repo of https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jax-rpc makes more sense?

@aseovic I think you have a point there. If you agree, I'll rename the proposal and the issue name accordingly: Jakarta JAX-RPC. Otherwise we can keep the name, and if there are any trademark issues we'll change it.

@shmacdonald please initiate trademark search for this project.

FYI, I believe that JAX is claimed as a trademark by our friends at Oracle and that we should not use it in the project name, id, or in any URL associated with the project.

I agree. Should I proceed to search for gRPC instead of Jax?

changed title from Jakarta gRPC to Jakarta JAX-RPC

changed title from Jakarta JAX-RPC to Jakarta gRPC

changed the description

changed due date to November 03, 2021

I'm pushing this creation review until next week, to give the project some more time to converge on the name. @aseovic please keep us posted.

If JAX-RPC is a non-starter, my preference is to keep it as is (Jakarta gRPC), but in a likely case that we cannot use gRPC either because it's CNCF trademark, I'm fine with Jakarta RPC.

It may actually be better, because it doesn't necessarily tie us to gRPC as a transport (Socket.io may be another option), although it will likely make the spec more difficult to define and to ensure that gRPC implementation details and assumptions do not leak through (not necessarily a bad thing...)

@shmacdonald please advice, can we use the Jakarta gRPC or the Jakarta RPC names?

We cannot use gRPC as the trademark belongs to someone else. We can use Jakarta RPC.

Thanks, Sharon

Let me check with a friend about how the CNCF handles their project names.

@shmacdonald thanks.

@aseovic I've modified the proposal to reflect the project name change. Please review it and make sure I didn't miss anything.

@mmilinkovich did a check. At this point our options are Jakarta RPC or Jakarta for gRPC.

@aseovic let us know what the community prefers.

Can we do Jakarta API for gRPC Services?

That would be in line with the full name of JAX-RS (which is Java API for RESTful Web Services, iirc) and would make it clear we are doing this explicitly for gRPC, which after some further thought is probably what we should focus on, instead of trying to make it more generic and support other RPC frameworks.

There also seem to be some objections to Jakarta RPC on the Jakarta EE Spec mailing list, because I guess at some point there was a project called JAX-RPC, and people think not calling out gRPC explicitly would confuse the matter.

I was chatting to someone yesterday about this who was unfamiliar with it and I had to distinguish it from XML-RPC. I was also wondering why the string jRPC has not appeared already. I think this project might benefit from 'claiming' jRPC as a term that people associate with it (even though there is some existing stale Java RPC related personal projects using that already.

@mmilinkovich we need your approval for the selected licensing scheme:

• License: Apache 2.0
• Patent License: Compatibility Patent License

Approved

marked the checklist item Eclipse Architecture Council mentor identified as completed

changed title from Jakarta gRPC to Jakarta RPC

changed the description

marked the checklist item License(s) approved as completed

changed the description

This being a specification project that will operate under the purview of the Jakarta EE Working Group, the Steering Committee must agree to the choice of patent license, and a Specification Committee ballot to approve the project creation must run for at least two weeks one week. The default patent license for the Jakarta EE Working Group is the Implementation Patent License, so their approval is required to proceed under the Compatible Patent License.

@mdelgado624 I'll connect with the steering committee to request that they run a vote to approve the exception. Once we have that approval, we'll initiate the ballot with the specification committee (I'll give the specification committee a heads-up as well). We're going to have push the creation review date back by at least two weeks (we'll adjust this based on the response from the steering committee)

changed due date to November 24, 2021

changed the description

added Spec ballotrequired label

changed due date to December 08, 2021

removed Trademark Approval Request label

I'm pushing the creation date a couple of weeks to give enough time to the Specification Committee to complete the ballot.

changed due date to January 19, 2022

marked the checklist item Project name trademark approved. Trademark transfer agreement available here in case you need it. as completed

The steering committee didn't approve the exception. Can you please change the project patent license to IPL and continue with the project creation process?

Done.

/cc @pbuckd40

changed the description

I don't see any record of a ballot being initiated with the specification committee to create this proposal.

@pbuckd40 can you please make sure that this gets initiated?

/cc @dkornilov

@wbeaton I seem to recall that when I checked earlier in the week, the project proposal listed CPL as the patent option, I see that is now IPL so the Spec Committee ballot can proceed. I will include that in the agenda for next weeks Spec Committee call.

marked the checklist item Two weeks of community review completed as completed

marked the checklist item Specification Committee ballot initiated as completed

marked the checklist item Specification Committee ballot concluded successfully as completed

Ballot has concluded successfully. Here are the results: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec/msg02129.html

removed Spec ballotrequired label

marked the checklist item Project lead(s) designated as completed

marked the checklist item Architecture Council mentor designated as completed

marked the checklist item Project created as completed

added EDPProvisioning label

This creation review has concluded successfully.

@aseovic could you please confirm the project resources that need to be created?

Once we get confirmation @webmaster will start the provisioning process.

assigned to @webmaster

The project provisioning process is complete! Here you will find all of the information regarding resources allocated to your project:

Source Code Management:

A new repository has been created at Github for your project: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/rpc .  Committers that have added their Github ID to their Eclipse.org accounts will start receiving invites to join the RCP Github team shortly.

Issue Tracker: 

Github issues have been enabled for your project.

Outbound Communication:

Mailing list: https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/jakartarpc-dev

Project Website repository:

ssh://committer_id@git.eclipse.org:29418/www.eclipse.org/ee4j/rpc.git

Commits will be published to www.eclipse.org/ee4j/rpc within 5 minutes

Downloads: http://download.eclipse.org/rpc

Archives: http://archive.eclipse.org/rpc

Builds: You can upload releases to rpc via SFTP or SCP from a CI instance at Eclipse.org

Older builds should be moved to the archives area when they are no longer required.

-M.

marked the checklist item Project provisioned (including at least one committer) as completed

added EDPInitial Contribution label and removed EDPProvisioning label

changed due date to February 16, 2022

changed due date to March 02, 2022

@aseovic what is the status of the project's initial contribution? Is there anything we can do to support you in the process? please let me know.

@aseovic any updates on this matter?

Sorry, I've been quite busy, and probably will be for the next few months, until our June release, but I'd like to start making some progress here.

What is the next step? I can see the repo's been created, but I don't have commit rights for it.

I can probably carve out some time to submit initial contribution by mid-May, and I know there were a few more contributors that wanted to join the spec that I wasn't able to add to the original proposal. If you can help me with that, that would be great.

@aseovic the next step is to submit your initial contribution. There is help in the handbook.

The initial contribution is a snapshot of the existing code base, and should contain only project content. Any project committer can start the initial contribution review process by creating a CQ.

Let me know if you need further assitance.

changed due date to March 16, 2022

changed due date to April 27, 2022