| Re: [jakarta.ee-community] [microprofile] Re: [microprofile-wg] MicroProfile, Jakarta EE, GlassFish/EE4J |
Hi David, above all that was already mentioned by others, I want to say on behalf of the whole OmniFish company that we agree with splitting EE4J out from the Jakarta EE Working group. Moving EE4J into a new working group doesn't seem to be necessary, it could become just a top-level project if it already isn't one, and projects inside can evolve as regular Eclipse Foundation projects even without a working group.Without going into details, I just mention that I believe that GlassFish and other projects in the EE4J space no longer receive marketing endorsement or special resources from Jakarta EE. And if they do, it's certainly not because it's intended but for historical reasons. There's an effort in progress to remove all dependencies between EE4J and Jakarta EE, although some dependencies still exist and it takes time and effort to remove them. In some cases, it's not even possible to completely remove some dependencies, but it's possible to allow other implementations outside of EE4J to be treated in the same way. The Platform TCK needs to be tested against some implementation, and, so far, only the GlassFish project offered help with that. If there are more implementations that offer help and could be used for testing the TCK in the future, it's only a good thing for the whole Jakarta EE ecosystem. On the individual specifications level it's already happening, and some specifications even have the main implementation outside of EE4J, e.g. Jakarta Data has Hibernate, or Jakarta Core Profile has OpenLiberty.and WildFly.It only makes sense to continue removing the dependencies between EE4J and Jakarta EE WG. If that's a requirement for MicroProfile to agree to moving to Jakarta EE, then MicroProfile needs to wait until all is ready. Though I'm not sure it's worth the delay since Jakarta EE is already moving in the requested direction, based on its own internal motivations. If we delay moving MicroProfile to Jakarta EE for too long, we risk that a lot of work on MicroProfile and Jakarta EE specifications will get stuck in a limbo, waiting until all this is sorted.All the best,Ondro MihalyiDirector, Jakarta EE expertOmniFish - Jakarta EE Consulting & Support | www.omnifish.eeOmnifish OÜ, Narva mnt 5, 10117 Tallinn, Estonia | VAT: EE102487932
--On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 5:36 AM David Blevins via microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:All,
Moving MicroProfile into the Jakarta EE Working Group and disbanding the MicroProfile Working Group requires a super-majority vote. There are currently four -1 votes and not enough +1 votes to make this happen. Tomitribe, Atlanta JUG and Committer Rep Emerson Castaneda represent 3 of those -1 votes.
We have a proposal we'd like to discuss with the respective communities that would allow the three of us to vote +1, guaranteeing enough votes to move MicroProfile into Jakarta EE.
The Jakarta EE Working Group (WG) charter currently includes GlassFish and other Eclipse implementations within EE4J. The Jakarta EE WG marketing is used to promote and award contributions to GlassFish as contributions to Jakarta EE. The Jakarta EE WG budget is used to fund infrastructure for building GlassFish/EE4J and swag for top GlassFish/EE4J committers. There is currently "Jakarta EE Community Mentor" proposal which will use all Jakarta EE channels to recognize, promote and award contributions to WG projects, including GlassFish/EE4J, excluding other implementations.
While the charter does contain "Provide vendor neutral marketing and other services to the Jakarta EE ecosystem", in practice marketing and budget are provided to GlassFish/EE4J in ways it will not extend to other vendors. The justification is that GlassFish/EE4J are part of the Jakarta EE Working Group and other implementations are not.
Our proposal is to move GlassFish/EE4J into a dedicated Working Group where these activities can happen without compromising the vendor neutrality goal of Jakarta EE. In short:
- Establish an EE4J Working Group and move all implementations out of Jakarta EE
- Move Jakarta EE budget line items associated with implementations (Infra $60k, etc) into EE4J Working Group
- Bootstrap this from the current year Jakarta EE budget as we did to start the MicroProfile Working Group
- Dissolve the MicroProfile Working Group and move all specs to Jakarta EE
- Increase Jakarta EE budget $50k to ensure Eclipse does not lose the $50k MicroProfile Working Group budget
- Revise Jakarta EE charter to remove references to EE4J (PMC representation on Jakarta EE committees would remain intact)
- Add requirement that inclusive vendor-neutral criteria will be established for marketing and other services extended to implementations in the Jakarta EE ecosystem
If there was support for moving GlassFish/EE4J to a separate Working Group, this commitment to neutrality would be applauded and we would vote +1 on moving MicroProfile into Jakarta EE. If all voices come with "why is this so bad" and general pushback, then we do not see value in moving MicroProfile to a Working Group that does not prioritize neutrality.
Would there be support for such a proposal to unite Jakarta EE / MicroProfile in a vendor-neutral Working Group and elevate GlassFish/EE4J into a dedicated Working Group?
-David
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CABd%3DrHe-MRrxEa_r6Fg293K6azz_q%3DxxW2QnSqKA5p3D8Qtodw%40mail.gmail.com.