I would also like to see Microprofile APIs become standardised through the Jakarta EE spec process when it is defined. Like Ian I think that would be on a case by case basis.
I think from an Eclipse organisational point of view MicroProfile should move to the EE4J top level project rather than the general Technology project as the project charter is a good fit. At the
same time the individual APIs could probably be also split into individual projects with something like a platform project for the set. However that is a discussion for the MicroProfile project itself.
Steve
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Ian Robinson
Sent: 20 December 2018 09:30
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile TCK Process
>
Do we ever expect to include any MicroProfile APIs in future versions of Jakarta EE?
As a pre-req, I expect that we will have a successful Jakarta EE platform and spec process but we have to get there first. Then its an MP project-by-project decision but I will be one of the MP community
members encouraging MP projects that have matured to then establish themselves as part of future Jakarta EE versions by going through the Jakarta EE spec process. So I don't *expect* but I do *hope* and I certainly will be pushing. The mechanics of how a MicroProfile-originated
API (for an MP project that desires to become part of Jakarta EEnext) becomes a Jakarta EEnext API remain to be seen and likely won't be entirely clear until we actually try to take a project in that direction. If we help and encourage a first one in the future
then it will be easier for more to follow.
This all assumes that we deliver a functioning Jakarta EE platform and spec process, of course.
Regards,
Ian
Ian Robinson, IBM Distinguished Engineer
WebSphere Foundation Chief Architect
IBM Hursley, UK
irobins@xxxxxxxxxx
Admin Assistant: Janet Brooks -
jsbrooks12@xxxxxxxxxx
From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 19/12/2018 19:39
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile TCK Process
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
If I wanted to move my project from Jakarta EE to MicroProfile to escape the onerous backward compatibility requirements, how would I do that?
Do we ever expect to include any MicroProfile APIs in future versions of Jakarta EE? Would they then move to EE4J and be subject to the same backward compatibility requirements?
Why don't we just define backward compatibility requirements for Jakarta EE that would work for both fast evolving new technologies and more stable proven technologies? Perhaps define different classes of APIs with different compatibility requirements, maybe
even something similar to the JDK's "incubating" APIs?
Scott Stark wrote on 12/19/18 09:36 AM:
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.
_______________________________________________
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
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
