Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Fork Eclipse MicroProfile Configuration as Ja

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> I can understand why Jakarta EE
specs may wish to depend on 
> MicroProfile config, but I'm not sure forking it is the right idea.
> Is there another option? Are there IP issues, or technical issues
> that constrain you from using MicroProfile Config as it is?

Yes, there is
another option...  Wait a month or so while MicroProfile figures out
a Working Group proposal.  The MP community and the EF are both in
favor of establishing a separate MP Working Group as a first step.  Once
this is established, then the Specifications (and APIs and TCKs) will all
be properly covered from an IP standpoint and they could be consumable
by Jakarta EE projects.  This way, a Jakarta EE project such as NoSQL
could then specify a dependency on MP Config without having to fork the
project and create this potential confusion with multiple "configuration
projects".

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote on 04/01/2020 09:58:03:

> From: Jonathan Gallimore <jgallimore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Jakarta EE community discussions
<jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 04/01/2020 09:58
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-community]
Fork Eclipse 
> MicroProfile Configuration as Jakarta Configuration.
> Sent by: jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> With this proposal, if a server wished to implement both Jakarta EE
> and MicroProfile, presumably they'd need to support the Config 
> specification in both namespaces (would the namespace change in the
> Jakarta EE fork?) at potentially different version levels and with
> different release cadences.
> 
> I can understand why Jakarta EE specs may wish to depend on 
> MicroProfile config, but I'm not sure forking it is the right idea.
> Is there another option? Are there IP issues, or technical issues
> that constrain you from using MicroProfile Config as it is?
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:35 PM Otavio Santana <otaviopolianasantana@xxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
> Hello everyone, I sent this
discussion about the total integration 
> of MicroProfile and Jakarta and I understood that it is not possible.
> 
> My question is: Does it make sense if we create a fork of Eclipse
> MicroProfile Configuration as Jakarta Configuration?
> The project seems stable and it will valuable to several projects
> such as JPA, JMS, and NoSQL. 
> I wrote a draft proposal about it, please, let me know what do you
> think about it.

> A draft Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 1O2rWD9eX9UiBM5KXpa9IM7zu7IK0C2401of88bmery0/edit?usp=sharing
> The thread of the previous discussion: https://www.eclipse.org/
> lists/jakartaee-spec-project-leads/msg00282.html
> -- 
> Otávio Santana
> 
> twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
> site:     http://about.me/otaviojava
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jakarta.ee-community mailing list
> jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/
> mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Gallimore
> http://www.tomitribe.com_______________________________________________
> jakarta.ee-community mailing list
> jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/
> mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community