Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-community] About Profiles

On 18 May 2018, at 14:40, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This isn’t just about vendor choice. You are certainly not alone in being happy with the full profile option. However, there are other classes of users/developers that aren’t and these have existed since the dawn of J2EE. For example, some people want to deploy their favour app server on to constrained devices which may be running on the cloud where an additional 50MB costs real money when run for hours or days or weeks or longer.

I wonder, is there in practice any service / device where a mere 50MB of disk space makes all the difference?

You mean apart from cloud (yes, those 1 cent costs do add up, and there’s private cloud deployments of which you may be unaware and have some funky architectural choices behind them), IoT? Oh and maybe it’s not just 50MB but some modern implementations can still be a bit “plump” in some areas ;)


 
Some developers want to reduce the maintenance complexity or boot time of their favourite app server by stripping out those capabilities they don’t want.


For that particular issue a static configuration (such as liberty's server.xml and in limited way JBoss/WildFly's standalone.xml), and/or the aforementioned prune tool would work just as well.

And then we get into the world of portability. As a developer I want to know a priori that my app will work across app servers and I really don’t want to have to check when I do the migration. Having app server A and B both say they support and are compliant with Profile X is extremely useful.


 
Now you could argue that these developers could just do this themselves anyway, e.g., JBossAS has supported this kind of pruning from the start. However, if you want portability and interoperability of your apps so you’re not tied to a specific app server implementation/vendor, having standardised profiles is the right approach.

Or a standardised static config, perhaps?

And what would we call those static configs. Oh hold on, let me suggest … profiles? ;)


Kind regards,
Arjan

 

Mark.


On 16 May 2018, at 23:16, Dominik Hufnagel <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As a user of JavaEE, I do not get the idea behind having multiple profiles. May someone can explain the benefits for users? If I can have a single profile with all available features, I would take it and I do not bother using a server which is 50MB larger of one with a „smaller“ profile. I can understand that it could be harder for vendors to enter the market having to provide the full profile. But for me, this would not be an argument for using smaller profiles. I’d rather take a server from a vendor which offers me the full profile. 
 

If I would use the MicroProfile and want to have JPA, do I have to add external dependencies? I really like some of the new APIs of the MicroProfile and would be happy to see them coming to JakartaEE.

Dominik
 
 
Von: jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jakarta.ee-community-bounces@eclipse.org] Im Auftrag von Mark Little
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 11:42
An: Jakarta EE community discussions <jakarta.ee-community@eclipse.org>
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] About Profiles
 
Hopefully others have responded already but … it’s for both: quick summary … vendors so they can ensure conformance and users so they can ensure portability and interoperability of their apps.
 
Speaking with my MicroProfile hat on, I for one would not want to trade the current MicroProfile for a full Jakarta EE profile and neither would our users.
 
Mark.
 
 
On 7 May 2018, at 17:33, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
So then the first question is perhaps; who wants profiles and benefits from it? Is a profile intended for vendors or for users?
 
 
---
Mark Little
 
JBoss, by Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
 
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community

---
Mark Little

JBoss, by Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)


_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community


_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community

---
Mark Little

JBoss, by Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)

Back to the top