I honestly don't understand why MP would ever need to join Jakarta EE. In fact, there is far more flexibility for both projects if they remain separate. A "Jakarta EE Profile for MP" be the best answer. We don't even need permission from MP nor would MP need to consult with Jakarta EE - although working together is ideal. My point is if you select X, Y, and Z specifications from MP (with no namespace change) and define them as part of an optional profile you have your cake and eat it too.
If you check the mail archive for this list you should see some discussion over the past week. However, it's not a decision this community can make on behalf of another so I encourage the MicroProfile community to debate the question as well.
I was just curious what the plans were for the relationship between MicroProfile and Jakarta EE? How/where will that decision be made?
Until this namespace news broke, I thought resolving the relationship between Jakarta EE and the MicroProfile was the immediate ‘problem’.
-Ryan
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
--
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
