Today we had our first meeting of the Jakarta Messaging project and discussed making several aspects optional. Specifically some of the messaging guarantees such as durable topics, explicit acknowledgement, message ordering and transactions. These are already options for users, but currently implementations must support them even if the user does not use them.
The motivation for allowing them to also be optional to implementors is to encourage more implementations; specifically from cloud providers and to make room for Kafka-like implementations. There was explicit discussion that the guarantees planned to be optional are still valid, not flawed or legacy, critically needed by some, not planned be removed and that new versions of the API such as the proposed annotation based API will cover and account for these optional features. The spirit we discussed for the API design is that anything optional would effectively be off by default and could be turned on via annotations/api calls by users who need them on implementations that support them.
How would this proposal map to our scenario we the planned use of optional is not because of legacy and simply to make room for more implementations?
--
David Blevins
310-633-3852
David,Short answer --
to avoid always being dependent on Glassfish as the Compatible Implementation.Longer answer
-- read through the referenced document.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)From:
David
Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>To:
Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date:
06/16/2021
14:08Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Discuss proposed Resolution for eliminating
Optional aspects of SpecificationsSent
by: "jakarta.ee-spec.committee"
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
What is the issue with optional features
that we're trying to avoid?
-- David Blevinshttp://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.comOn Jun 16, 2021, at 11:59 AM, Kevin Sutter
<sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:On our Specification
Committee call today, we discussed a proposed Resolution (prepared by Dan
and Paul) about eliminating the use of Optional features in Jakarta EE
Specifications. We decided that we should discuss the Resolution
via the private mailing list for the next seven days (max). At that
time, hopefully enough input would produce a version of the Resolution
to post to a wider audience (Spec Project Leads and/or public Spec Committee
mailing lists). Again, hopefully, we would get enough input from
these two mailings to allow for a ballot on the Resolution at our next
Spec Committee meeting on the 30th.
First, for background, if you are not familiar with the back story for
this Resolution, please review this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O5MnbQRn8RWkM4BpJth9VqGfhKLBZfFzK_fpIyZ_2vw/edit
(BTW, before we externalize that document to the Spec Project Leads and/or
public Spec Committee mailing list, we should resolve any outstanding comments...
Dan,I will leave you in charge of that activity.)
The proposed resolution is just a slightly re-worded version of option
#1 in the referenced document.- DRAFT RESOLUTION: To
eliminate marking any Jakarta EE Specification feature as optional in some
future release of each Jakarta EE Working Group Specification, including
and possibly starting with the Jakarta EE Platform Specification Release
10. All remaining features would be required.
- Clarifying text to
the proceeding resolution: The process would be to mark all optional features
in the current release as “Deprecated” in a new Minor release (Release
9.2), and in a subsequent Major release (not necessarily the very next
Major release) eliminate the Deprecated feature completely from the Jakarta
EE Platform Specification. Eliminating these Deprecated features is not
retroactive to earlier released specifications, which will continue to
exist. As implied, “Deprecated” will be defined as a way of marking a
feature as on the path to complete elimination from some future release,
and it indicates to the public “this feature is going away”. This
two-step process provides a formal communication mechanism within the specification
itself for the Working Group to signal to the community that a feature
will definitely be removed from a future release. The intent is to mark
current features marked as “Optional” as “Deprecated”, but in the future
even “Required” features could be marked as “Deprecated” should the
Working Group decide to prune little used features from the platform. This
two-step process will take longer but will also give consumers of the platform
a longer runway to plan for and deal with the elimination of the feature
should they wish to consume that future platform release.
Comments and suggestions are welcome! Thanks!
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:
sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To 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 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@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
