| Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Fork Eclipse MicroProfile Configuration as Jakarta Configuration. |
| Annual Corporate Revenues less than $1 million and < 10 employees | $0 |
I don't think most of us have to worry about making more than 1 million if they are an SME with 1 to employees ;-)
I have always been critical of the WG "explosion" like you may see in automotive (good luck now with that especially after Corona) and not just for
better synergies between MP and Jakarta EE but also for cost efficiency I would prefer a single WG along the lines of "CN4J" but if everyone involved in MicroProfile especially the biggest companies like Red Hat or IBM (AFAIK they are SEPARATE entities here and also pay separate FEES) insist on having a separate WG then they might as well pay between 20k and 200k per year each if they really think they need it O;-)
Werner
_______________________________________________Just for the record: It is a complete antipattern to have fees to have a say in a specification at all. Technical capability and quality should be the sole merit required.It is bad for JakartaEE and it will also badly affect MP if we really introduce any $$ rules!I do hope this was an April 1st joke as well...LieGrue,strubAm 01.04.2020 um 17:49 schrieb Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>:As long as the companies are willing to pay twice for fees even in times of Corona and a likely recession, why not...Werner_______________________________________________On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:45 PM Jonathan Gallimore <jgallimore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:That was one proposal, but I believe the latest discussion for a MicroProfile WG is here: https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/microprofile/yeYDvjBj6gM/-wu6oUaYBgAJJonOn Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:43 PM Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:MP Working Group, I thought there was a common "Cloud Native Java WG" for both, or is that just to handle MicroProfile?Werner_______________________________________________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.
PULL TEXT
----------------
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.
Steve
From: jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ivar Grimstad
Sent: 01 April 2020 15:58
To: Jakarta EE community discussions <jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] 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
would
prevent the two from drifting apart. Or that contributors have to
constantly
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.
Heiko
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
--
Ivar GrimstadJakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.Eclipse Foundation: The Platform for Open Innovation and Collaboration
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
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
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community