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.

There is a point in Steve's remarks

>If Jakarta Config went through the JESP then the IP would be clean enough. It is not necessary on the Jakarta side to wait for the >MP WG to sort itself out.

>MP specs aren't going to be consumable in their raw state due to the pull model approved by MP and the desire to support >both MP and Jakarta in a single runtime. Bidirectional dependencies between the initiatives with different cadences and >stability goals will be a nightmare. This concern was raised on the MP side but dismissed as "not our problem".

>Also any MP spec may need changes to cleanly integrate to ensure a consistent experience in the Jakarta EE platform and the >Jakarta platform has different stability requirements. The MP statement is to forge ahead without regard to consumers of specs.

So it could be subject to ALL of MP applying the JESP, even the most "exotic" ones, otherwise that won't work and those that seem technically more mature and stable like config would suffer from a few who try to be very "agile" and "fast" at the cost of a mature stable platform.

While it may not appeal to all "Microprofs" the idea Sebastian Daschner proposed with MicroProfile as a kind of "sandbox" or incubator does not sound so bad. As long as the mature projects or subprojects respect the necessary stability goals and everything else like IP (which IMO all of MicrorProfile must do, otherwise a feature would never be able to "graduate" and become usable by the Jakarta platform) 

The namespace is a technicality, calling it "jakarta.config" instead of "org.eclipse.microprofile.config" offers a consistent experience in the Jakarta EE platform like Steve mentioned, but technically both would work fine.


On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:28 PM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Personally, I don't like the idea of forking, which might sound like a good idea at a first glance. However, once there is a fork, this will give end uers a lot of headache. When they  do an import, multiple things pop up and they might end up use partial APIs from either spec. The MP Config and Jakarta Config spec will go out of sync very soon. In short, there should not be 2 config specs.

Having that said, as mentioned by Kevin, MP is focusing on creating WG. Once it is done, there are no IP concerns. Why can't Jakarta EE consume MP Config freely. Also, I suggested a LTS solution for MP Specs to indicate some releases to be consumed by Jakarta etc.

My 2cents.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:41 AM Rudy De Busscher <rdebusscher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, forking the MP config is a good idea now that MicroProfile has decided on the pull option.
The Working Group discussion (and thus IP handling) doesn't solve the issue with the backward compatibility which explicitly will not be of any concern to MicroProfile. MP Config will perform a breaking change in the next month, so even if it seems stable, it can't be referenced by Jakarta.

Besides the integration of MP JWT Auth as Arjan proposes, I also propose to include MP Rest client into Jakarta REST. We need to implement the same features in the respectively Jakarta specifications so it will be a fork.

When the main MicroProfile specs are forked into Jakarta, there will be no need anymore to combine the Jakarta and the MicroProfile specifications into the applications servers and we will have Jakarta runtimes and MicroProfile runtimes each consumes their respective specifications.

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 03:24, David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 1, 2020, at 8:33 AM, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Right.  And specifically we don't just need the Working Group in place with a specification process, but we need to actually do a release of MicroProfile Config under that process.

We're a few months away from having IP clean enough for any proposal on the Jakarta side to move forward.

In short, our current status: eat your meat so you can have your pudding. :)


_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit


_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top