Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Fork Eclipse MicroProfile Configuration as Jakarta Configuration.

MP Working Group, I thought there was a common "Cloud Native Java WG" for both, or is that just to handle MicroProfile?


On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:37 PM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would support a proposal to standardise a config api in Jakarta EE for Jakarta EE 10 based off the MP Config api but properly integrated across the platform.


I agree the pull model really moves us towards forking and moving to the Jakarta namespace if we want to manage stability and integration into the rest of Jakarta EE.


Tbh it would be easier to support both in a single product if they were in separate namespaces.


For reference here is the Pull model that MP voted to adopt.




MicroProfile creates and evolves specifications without regard to downstream consumer requirements (e.g. Jakarta). For example, specification consumers will have to manage items like lifecycle, compatibility requirements, namespace, whether org.eclipse.microprofile is a suitable root package, etc.

MicroProfile can continue to evolve a specification regardless of downstream spec consumers, and it is up to the downstream consumer to decide if it wants to re-sync (or pull ideas from) MicroProfile updates. Additionally, MicroProfile can optionally decide to consume concepts or APIs from downstream projects.





From: <> On Behalf Of Ivar Grimstad
Sent: 01 April 2020 15:58
To: Jakarta EE community discussions <>
Subject: Re: [] Fork Eclipse MicroProfile Configuration as Jakarta Configuration.




On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:49 PM Heiko W. Rupp <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 1 Apr 2020, at 16:34, Otavio Santana wrote:

> My question is: Does it make sense if we create a fork of Eclipse
> MicroProfile Configuration as Jakarta Configuration?

That is a nice Aprils fool of you :-)


I think the only thing you can make April fools jokes about these days are toilet paper :)


> The project seems stable and it will valuable to several projects such
> as JPA, JMS, and NoSQL.

Is(n't) the main obstacle of just including it that MicroProfile does
not have the IP
protection has, as it does not use the Eclipse Spec Process? If so, I
guess just
waiting on that Process to be used may be as good/quick as a fork and
prevent the two from drifting apart. Or that contributors have to
submit changes to two projects.

But I am sure I am missing some things


The decision within MicroProfile to go with the "Pull" approach to technical alignment actually advocates forking rather than referencing. Jakarta EE can then decide on what level of backward compatibility it wants without relying on the decisions made by MicroProfile. Just my 2 cents.



_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit



Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Eclipse Foundation: The Platform for Open Innovation and Collaboration

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top