Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] About Profiles

There is no standardized Pruning/Minimizing tool. 
Which Jakarta EE deserves something like the mentioned Eemph tool on a platform level that all vendors can use rather than reinventing the wheel.

It may be inspired by what they got already.


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:14 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Web Profile is still too "fat"

To whom? To the users, the vendors, or to evangelists of competing technologies?

Users, if they really are so worried about that extra jar that doesn't do anything sitting there can use the aforementioned pruning/minifying tool.

Vendors, if they can't implement the extra components, can chose from a rich set of available OSS components, such as e.g. Soteria.

Evangelist of competing technologies, they'll always call Java EE fat, because they have to in order to promote their own products.

why would some vendors have taken the trouble with MicroProfile? ;-)

Frankly? I think it's largely a naming issues. People, perhaps inspired a little by evangelists of competing technologies, like to equate Java EE with a 2GB+ WebSphere installation.

In practice, WebSphere is now the outlier and not the norm. Does the majority of people really flock to use products that contain only the MicroProfile APIs and nothing else, or do they rather use a product that also contains many or all of the other rich Java EE APIs?

But that said, we now have full profile, web profile and basically micro profile. Do we really need more profiles than that? Do we need a LOT more profiles than that?

What does a lot even mean? Is that 3 extra profiles? 5 extra profiles? 10?

The only extra profile I'd really argue for is a legacy free profile, that's not just a subset wrt components/APIs, but more aggressively prunes everything deprecated and legacy, possibly ahead of the full profile. Such a profile would not be backwards compatible (that only makes it different), but would be a more ideal point for new people to start.

Kind regards,


Although "Micro" may be the wrong term here, given many of the MicroProfile features or "glue" to other external projects like Failsafe or Dropwizard (much like Spring ;-) etc. may never really be something to standardize and test via a (Jakarta EE) TCK harness at all, but there should be a smaller profile that does not force everyone who wants to expose a simple RESTful API to also implement Servlet, JSP, JSF and a whole lot of other stuff, see (it even includes EJB and JPA or JTA)


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mohamed M. El-Beltagy <melbeltagy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am sorry, but from what I have read so far in the mailing list I have to ask.
Don't we already have the full and web profiles which, as far as I understand, serve the purposes already?
Today's full profile is the proposed legacy profile. Web profile is the new profile we are looking for.
Perhaps web profile is not ideal at the current state with big room of improvement, but we can do that. Don't we?

Once again, sorry. I have been following these emails with all of those perfect and great ideas, but I feel that we are almost reaching the same conclusion that have been reached before.

Best regards,
Mohamed Elbeltagy

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Werner Keil
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top