Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile TCK Process

[Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Right, but as you say, the process was only part of it. The focus on microservices and the relevant technologies for cloud native microservices was another part. The ability to evolve APIs without the enterprise requirements for backwards compatibility was yet another. 

We should be looking at elements of the MicroProfile process that seems to work and attempt to accommodate the possibility of MicroProfile using a future EFSP, but I'm not convinced that it is a requirement, and potentially not even possible.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:53 PM Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MicroProfile was at least partly a reaction to the perceived problems with the JCP and the failure to evolve Java EE quickly enough.  Our goal with Jakarta EE was to solve those problems and bring the communities back together, not to replicate the JCP at Eclipse.

We do not want two competing specification processes, even if both derive from the Eclipse Foundation Specification Process.

Werner Keil wrote on 12/18/18 11:00 AM:

And based on earlier discussions, shouldn’t it be more an „Eclipse Specification Process“ (which may have some Special cases for „Jakarta EE“ or what the JCP used to call a „Platform“) that is suitable for MicroProfile, Science, IoT, OS.bea or any other part of the Eclipse ecosystem that has to deal with specification and standardization?

 

So MicroProfile could be one good example for a possible further user, but it should not be considered the only one.