Find JSRs
Submit this Search

Ad Banner

JSRs: Java Specification Requests
JSR 350: Java State Management

This JSR has been Rejected
Reason: This JSR was not approved to continue by the Executive Committee in the JSR Renewal Ballot.

Updates to the Original JSR Proposal

The following information has been updated from the original proposal on the dates shown.

The JSR was not approved to continue in the renewal ballot.

Tim Watson has taken over as Specification Lead.

Specification Lead Member: Oracle America, Inc.

Specification Lead: Tim Watson

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 925 694 3973

Fax Number: -


2.18 Please provide a description of the business terms for the Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.


JSR 350 moved to JCP 2.9.

2.19 Please describe the communications channel you have established for the public to observe Expert Group deliberations, provide feedback, and view archives of all Expert Group communications.

Community can use the email list

EG communications archive

Details of the Expert Group nominations for this JSR will be made public via the EG group email list, and viewable in the archive.

2.20 What is the URL of the Issue Tracker that the public can read, and how does the public log issues in the Issue Tracker?

2.21 Please provide the location of the publicly accessible document archive you have created for the Expert Group.

SVN (read-only)


Specification Lead: Mitch Upton

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 303 471 1693

Fax Number: -

Original Java Specification Request (JSR)

Identification | Request | Contributions

Section 1. Identification

Submitting Member: Oracle Corporation

Name of Contact Person: Jeff Trent

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 856 359 2937

Fax Number: -

Specification Lead: Jeff Trent

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 856 359 2937

Fax Number: -

Initial Expert Group Membership:


Supporting this JSR:

Greg Luck

Section 2: Request

2.1 Please describe the proposed Specification:

The Java EE platform has many and varied usages of State data. The most well known example of State data is the HttpSession State object which is associated with a User access (or scope). JSR-299 introduced the notion of additional scopes such as @RequestScope which is associated with the flow of information from the caller to the callee, and @ApplicationScope which is associated with transient data scoped to a deployed application. However, all of these scopes face the application developers. Neither the backing state framework(s) are exposed (for more direct access route to state data), nor is it possible to add or manipulate the backing state framework(s) in a generalized fashion to add or replace a provider that is perhaps more capable in terms of a desired set of quality of service(s) [QoS].

Traditionally, the implementation details for all State management has been owned by the EE plaform vendor, and gaining access to such data has either been impossible or limited to proprietary vendor APIs.

This proposal introduces an API that will allow platforms to offer a modular, pluggable subsystem for dealing with State management. This would allow a clean separation of concerns, and also provide new capabilities that didn't exist before such as SE callers gaining access to State data more directly (provided that security policy permits such operations).

This proposal also introduces a capabilities based model for vendors to be able to add a variety of provider implementations ranging in feature and sophistication. Providers could be added that advertise certain sets of capabilities, and API callers can resolve to a provider that best matches the set of must-have or nice-to-have capability requirements being sought by the caller.

2.2 What is the target Java platform? (i.e., desktop, server, personal, embedded, card, etc.)

The target platforms are Java EE and Java SE.

2.3 The Executive Committees would like to ensure JSR submitters think about how their proposed technology relates to all of the Java platform editions. Please provide details here for which platform editions are being targeted by this JSR, and how this JSR has considered the relationship with the other platform editions.

The target platforms are Java EE and Java SE.

2.4 Should this JSR be voted on by both Executive Committees?

No. By the SE/EE EC only.

2.5 What need of the Java community will be addressed by the proposed specification?

See 2.1 above.

2.6 Why isn't this need met by existing specifications?

See 2.1 above.

2.7 Please give a short description of the underlying technology or technologies:

A Java based API & SPI.

2.8 Is there a proposed package name for the API Specification? (i.e., javapi.something, org.something, etc.)

javax.state & javax.state.provider

2.9 Does the proposed specification have any dependencies on specific operating systems, CPUs, or I/O devices that you know of?


2.10 Are there any security issues that cannot be addressed by the current security model?


2.11 Are there any internationalization or localization issues?

This specification uses the I18N support in Java SE

2.12 Are there any existing specifications that might be rendered obsolete, deprecated, or in need of revision as a result of this work?


2.13 Please describe the anticipated schedule for the development of this specification.

Q3 2011 Expert Group formed
Q1 2012 Early Draft
Q2 2012 Public Review
Q3 2012 Final Release

2.14 Please describe the anticipated working model for the Expert Group working on developing this specification.

The primary means of communication will be email, with conference calls and face-to-face meetings scheduled as needed.

2.15 Provide detailed answers to the transparency checklist, making sure to include URLs as appropriate:

A project site will be used to track all issues and disseminate information on the progress of the JSR.

- The public can read the names of the people on the Expert Group.

This information will be on on the project page for the JSR. It will also be part of every specification draft.

- The Expert Group business is regularly reported on a publicly readable alias.

The Expert Group will conduct business on a publicly readable alias. A private alias will be used only for EG-confidential information, as needed.

- The schedule for the JSR is publicly available, it's current, and I update it regularly.

The schedule will be available on the project page for the JSR.

- The public can read/write to a wiki for my JSR.

We'll use a public mailing list for comments.

- I read and respond to posts on the discussion board for my JSR on

We'll track such discussions and respond to them or redirect users to the public comment mailing list.

- There is an issue-tracker for my JSR that the public can read.

Yes, it will be accessible from the JSR project page.

- I have spoken at conferences and events about my JSR recently.


- I am using open-source processes for the development of the RI and/or TCK.

Yes, the Reference Implementation will be developed as a project.

- The Update tab for my JSR has links to and information about all public communication mechanisms and sites for the development of my JSR.

It will point to the project page for the JSR.

2.16 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both. Include version information for the profile or platform in your answer.

The RI and TCK will be delivered both standalone and as part of the Java EE 7 TCK.

2.17 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI and TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).


2.18 Please provide a description of the business terms for the Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.

Note that this information has been updated since this original proposal.

The specification will use the standard spec license.

The RI license is here.

The TCK license is here.

Section 3: Contributions

3.1 Please list any existing documents, specifications, or implementations that describe the technology. Please include links to the documents if they are publicly available.

Proprietary implementation point solutions exist today for this. For example:
- In WebLogic,
- In Tomcat, (see session manager)
- In JBoss, (see state management)

There are other examples of course.

Additionally, the usage patterns of the other JavaEE specifications will also influence the ultimate API and SPI (see section 3.2) since a motivation is to further open up the JavaEE Platform, making it extensible for other provider implementations that might support varying QoS characteristics.

3.2 Explanation of how these items might be used as a starting point for the work.

Will understand the current needs surrounding state management usage and its implementations, and build an agreed API and SPI. Also expect to have representation from these organizations on the EG.