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.

If there is one world, it would be called Spring. If you don't care to listen to my comments and instead want to demand that I agree with yours, this issue will simply come down to a vote with no rationale discourse. Those who wanted push but did not listen to the fact that the discussion about how MP would be consumed by Jakarta would be rehashed in the Jakarta community are the one who should not be complaining that there is not a unified view of how Jakarta should consume MP.

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 1:48 AM Rudy De Busscher <rdebusscher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can everyone who voted for PULL, stop complaining against the Jakarta people for exactly doing what you have voted for. 

The word fork was removed last minute from the pull text but it was always part of it during the discussions during months and the intention.  But this downstream project is exactly doing what is in the PULL text, defining the lifecycle, compatibility requirements and namespace.

And don't start about having 2 different hats. There is only 1 world, 1 reality in which Jakarta does exactly what is needs to do based on the outcome of the PULL vs PUSH vote.

The fork is the only viable solution if vendors want to keep combining Jakarta EE and MicroProfile in one product when some of the MP specs are used by Jakarta Specs.

Back to the top