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.

+1 Rudy,

We already had a strange situation like this and much delay because of the Config JSR which was rendered useless in the end from a license and namespace perspective. 

Everyone uses Jakarta EE specs, MP does in an increasing number now, so it would not be a "sudden death" but gracefully phasing it out in favor of the Jakarta spec, but unless that exists things will be blocked forever. 
It looks like there are some (especially Payara) who prefer to be spec compatible while others (Tomitribe, maybe Red Hat/IBM although I know there are people who strongly support Jakarta EE and others who don't seem to care in the same company) so I doubt except gathering opinions this list can really decide anything. 

It is likely for the Steering Committee in this case and maybe other committees or the PMC.

Spring/Pivotal is never likely to give a damn about MicroProfile Config, while Spring Framework has always adopted a large number of Jakarta EE (Java EE) specs, from Servlet to JMS, JPA, JTA or Batch which is shaped massively or the Jakarta Injection as the minimal denominator between Spring and CDI.


On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:43 PM Rudy De Busscher <rdebusscher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
During the MP technical discussion there was discussion about those things and it was clear for everyone that the  "move fast and break things" of MP is a valid scenario but with consequences for downstream consumers (they require a fork if they want stability)

MicroProfile did what it needed to do, now it is time that Jakarta does what it needs to do and move forward. It can't be blocked because the people of MP don't think it is a good idea (and they shouldn't care about it as they would not consider downstream consumers)


On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 20:35, Andy Guibert <andy.guibert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I strongly oppose the idea of forking MP Config in Jakarta. 

Politics aside, it is an absolute headache from a technical perspective. It's going to be the javax->jakarta rename all over again, except worse because the "old" spec (MP Config) will still move forward on its own.

Config needs to be a foundation technology that lots of other library implementations can depend on. If we have a Jakarta Config and a MP Config API floating around, how will those libraries support both APIs? If a property is set at the same ordinal in both MP Config and Jakarta config, which one should win?
If the solution of forking a Jakarta Config is only feasible if MP agrees to kill of MP Config, I highly doubt that will happen, and frankly it is a rude thing to ask another community to do.

I agree that MP has the freedom to "move fast and break things", but MP does not break things just for fun. In the case of MP Config, it is a pretty stable technology that is feature complete, so I highly doubt any new breaking changes will arise in the future. Even if they did, Jakarta could define which version of MP Config it was capable of inter operating with.

- Andy

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:19 AM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don’t like the idea of Jakarta consuming “raw” MP specs for a number of reasons


If I want to support the latest MP and the latest Jakarta EE in the same product then it will be a nightmare, if they run at different pace but are in the same namespace. This will drive us to shipping separate products and therefore Jakarta EE developers will be excluded from the latest innovations in MP.


Jakarta needs to be a consistent platform, it has enough problems with multiple bean models that need unifying. Therefore changes may need to done to specifications to make them consistent with the current state of the overall Jakarta EE platform and to make them work well in the context of Jakarta EE. Given the MP stated goal is to be not concerned with how consumers use the specifications I assume this work will need to be done within the Jakarta efforts.


MP goal is rapid innovation, “move fast, break things” Jakarta’s goal is a stable evolving platform with backwards compatibility requirements. These things are inconsistent. If a developer is using the MP namespace then they know apis may change. If they are using Jakarta apis then they have backwards compatibility guarantees. Mixing the namespace within the Jakarta EE platform breaks that understanding.


Finally for politics. IMHO many members of the MP project do not really see themselves delivering standardised apis in a multi-vendor collaboration,  it’s all about innovation and speed. They balk at governance, committees, etc. and wish to move forward like an Apache project. MP should forget about specifications, working groups etc. and leave Jakarta EE to standardize the innovative apis where appropriate into a coherent platform in the Jakarta namespace.


The ideal solution is for Jakarta to see MP as a pool of innovation for ideas which we can adopt, standardise and incorporate in a consistent manner into the overall Jakarta EE platform.






From: <> On Behalf Of Emily Jiang
Sent: 02 April 2020 13:28
To: Jakarta EE community discussions <>
Subject: Re: [] Fork Eclipse MicroProfile Configuration as Jakarta Configuration.


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

Back to the top