Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [config-dev] Discussion about Jakarta Config on MP Technical meeting
Hi Dmitry,

My comments are inline.


On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:07:28 PM UTC+1 Dmitry Kornilov wrote:
I listened a recording of the latest MicroProfile technical meeting where Jakarta Config was discussed. I don't agree in a way how Jakarta Config was presented there, it doesn't reflect the real situation. I even more disappointed that it was presented by Emily, who is one of the leaders.

As one of the leads for MicroProfile Technical calls, I ran last week's calls. Because MP Config and Jakarta Config discussion was added to the agenda, I had to lead the discussion. In my view, it is wrong to ignore the issue. It is important to listen to what people think regarding this issue. We should not suppress any questions.
The first and fundamental mistake is to think that Jakarta Config tries to build a new spec from scratch. It's not our goal. We want to get maximum from MP Config but before doing it we want to understand what we want to build.

The main concern about MP Config is that it was not build in truly vendor-neutral way. Technically it's not a specification at all because it was not created under any specification process. It's an open source API created by a few enthusiasts mostly from RedHat and IBM. Although, I'm not saying that it's a bad API, but Jakarta cannot take it as it is without a deep review, without making sure that it fits all Jakarta EE requirements and without a consensus between all participating parties. This is what Jakarta Config team is currently working on. We are trying to set some requirements and after that we'll decide how MP Config should be changed to address them. This new spec must become the only config spec suiting both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile. I agree that there is no need to have 2 configs.

MicroProfile welcomes all participants. I had been trying to contact people to get involved. It will be great more and more get involved. I am pleased to know we are on the same line of not having 2 configs. I think some fundamental guidelines should be laid out when thinking about solutions.

Talking about changes. We haven't finished our analysis and it's too early to provide a summary. So far, MP Config fits well into our requirements, but there are a few issues which I consider minor.

MicroProfile team pushing hard in all directions to force Jakarta Config to take MP Config as it is. We already had a several discussions about it. We will discuss it again on CN4J meeting. I personally believe that it's not right open source way of doing things. Please stop doing it! I personally invited all MP Config committers to Jakarta Config team. So let's work together to build a spec which all parties will be happy with.
I think it is important to take some input or guidance from the cummunity on what Jakarta Config should focus and the relationship with MP Config. The whole discussion was to make people ware of the technical discussion to happen in CN4J so that the two communities won't have surprises far down the road.

Thanks
Emily

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 6:09 PM Dmitry Kornilov <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I listened a recording of the latest MicroProfile technical meeting where Jakarta Config was discussed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDpT_Gu2uX4&t=774s). I don't agree in a way how Jakarta Config was presented there, it doesn't reflect the real situation. I even more disappointed that it was presented by Emily, who is one of the leaders.

The first and fundamental mistake is to think that Jakarta Config tries to build a new spec from scratch. It's not our goal. We want to get maximum from MP Config but before doing it we want to understand what we want to build.

The main concern about MP Config is that it was not build in truly vendor-neutral way. Technically it's not a specification at all because it was not created under any specification process. It's an open source API created by a few enthusiasts mostly from RedHat and IBM. Although, I'm not saying that it's a bad API, but Jakarta cannot take it as it is without a deep review, without making sure that it fits all Jakarta EE requirements and without a consensus between all participating parties. This is what Jakarta Config team is currently working on. We are trying to set some requirements and after that we'll decide how MP Config should be changed to address them. This new spec must become the only config spec suiting both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile. I agree that there is no need to have 2 configs.

Talking about changes. We haven't finished our analysis and it's too early to provide a summary. So far, MP Config fits well into our requirements, but there are a few issues which I consider minor.

MicroProfile team pushing hard in all directions to force Jakarta Config to take MP Config as it is. We already had a several discussions about it. We will discuss it again on CN4J meeting. I personally believe that it's not right open source way of doing things. Please stop doing it! I personally invited all MP Config committers to Jakarta Config team. So let's work together to build a spec which all parties will be happy with.

 

-- Dmitry

 

_______________________________________________
config-dev mailing list
config-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org


--
Thanks
Emily

Back to the top