|
Without getting into specific solutions
I have to add that the Eclipse Foundation itself has opinions
about specification processes. As an institution we have learned
an enormous amount over the past year about the legal frameworks
relevant to specification-setting organizations (SSO).
MicroProfile started out as an adventure in agile processes. But
its very success has meant that at least 8 vendors are producing
implementations and it is seeing widespread industry interest and
adoption. Its current process and licensing frameworks are
concerning to us given the visibility it has achieved. From our
perspective the status quo is increasingly worrisome.
However, I don't know if Bill's stated
intent of having MicroProfile join Jakarta EE is a good topic to
be discussing as yet. I would rather focus everyone's attention
and energy on getting the JCP specs into Jakarta EE and enabling
their evolution. We cannot claim to have a functioning Jakarta EE
process for MicroProfile to join until we've accomplished that.
On 2018-12-18 10:21 a.m., Kevin Sutter
wrote:
Bill,
I have been thinking about this
comparison
between MicroProfile and Jakarta EE processes... But, it's
almost
like comparing apples and oranges... This is mainly due to the
protection
of the respective brands. The MicroProfile processes are truly
based
on the honor system. The MicroProfile branding is housed on a
Google
drive with public access. We've documented the fair use of
these
logos, but we don't protect them and hand them out only after
completing
the TCKs. So far, this has been working -- especially as a
"start
up". MicroProfile's momentum continues to grow. Maybe
at some point down the road, we'll have to adjust our thinking
and put
more controls in place. But, we're doing these type of process
modifications
in a more agile, reactive manner than proactive.
Contrast that with the Jakarta EE
effort...
Due to the relationship between Java EE and Jakarta EE, the
Jakarta
EE brand is starting off stronger than the MicroProfile brand.
The
protection mindset is already in place for this brand. Thus,
the
Spec process and TCK process and the Compliance process are all
geared
for this heavier protection of the brand. Maybe we're going
overboard
with these processes for Jakarta EE? I'll just leave that
question
hanging...
It's already been made clear that
the
MicroProfile Specifications are not the same as the Jakarta EE
Specifications.
We would have to move MicroProfile to a Working Group to
participate
in the Specification process. I accept that. But, that in
itself
is already making it difficult to just move over to Jakarta EE.
The
MicroProfile community enjoys the freedom to define our own
processes.
And, trying to get Jakarta EE to match or even allow the same
type
of release cadence as MicroProfile is a tall order (7 Platform
releases
and 17 Component releases in just over 2 years of existence).
I'm not trying to indicate that
we have
failed with Jakarta EE processes (your original question). Far
from
it. I'm just pointing out that the two groups have had
different
requirements and goals. And, with the post Java EE 8 effort
still
in limbo with Jakarta EE, we have to continue pushing the
MicroProfile
agenda as we have in the past so that we can continue to compete
in this
Cloud Native Java world.
FYI, these are my own personal
thoughts
and not necessarily the MicroProfile Community's nor even
IBM's... :-)
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From:
Bill Shannon
<bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Jakarta specification
committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin
Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
12/17/2018 05:44 PM
Subject:
Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
MicroProfile TCK Process
Thanks, Kevin, that was helpful.
Have you taken the next step and formed an opinion on what you
think we
should or should not require for the Jakarta EE TCK process?
I hope everyone remembers that one of our main goals here is to
create
a specification (including TCK) process that is acceptable to
the MicroProfile
community so that MicroProfile becomes part of EE4J and Jakarta
EE.
If what we end up with is (e.g.) too heavyweight for
MicroProfile to use,
we will have failed.
Kevin Sutter wrote on 12/17/18 02:20 PM:
Hi,
To follow David's lead, I have created a document for our
MicroProfile
TCK Process. While the Java EE TCK process is at one end of the
pendulum
swing, the MicroProfile TCK process might be nearer the other
end. But,
so far, it's been working for us... Since many of you are
probably
not familiar with the process we've been using, I thought I
would try documenting
it. I've given everybody that had access rights to David's
document
the same rights on this document. Comments and Suggestions
would
be welcome! I'm not sure of the agenda for this week's meeting,
but
I'd be willing to walk people through it whenever it makes the
agenda.
Thanks.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BvdDSScDIhmUCtSJKfpHATUXrqqw2aaJ3c7xI4VWlhg/edit#heading=h.i6oqwqcg54z3
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
|
