[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Transitioning Jakarta EE to the jakarta namespace

We discussed Big Bang and incremental approach so far. Both of them have pros and cons. How about we do something in between:
Directly lock javax JSRs. For any new update related to a particular JSR, just start the new changes under Jakarta EE namespace without changing the existing APIs. For an example, MicroProfile Rest Client is an update to Rest client. MicroProfile context propagation is an update on Concurrence JSR. In MicroProfile, we create new APIs without changing any Java EE specs. We can use this approach for Jakarta EE spec updates. The only difference is to use jakata.ee namespace. In this way, we can directly create any APIs.
I think changing the current javax either Big Bang or incrementally will impact existing users. As you may know, some old libs may not have the source available any more. I think what I recommend does not impact any existing apps.
My 2cents
Thanks 
Emily 


On May 18, 2019 at 3:10 pm, <Peter P. Lupo> wrote:

All the points made in favor of the big bang so far are pretty relevant and good points. I also agree with the big bang. I like the idea of providing an alternative to the existing API so we can provide a tool to migrate the existing applications but I would only go this far in terms of keeping existing functionality.
Truth being told, Java EE needs pruning. The more features we add, greater is the effort to keep backward compatibility, making enhancements costly.
We could provide a Jakarta.legacy package for equivalence and start fresh under Jakarta.*, keeping what is useful, adding new stuff and removing stuff like ejb older than 3.1, etc...

On Sat, May 18, 2019, 09:49 Josh Juneau <juneau001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
An area that I don't think has been mentioned yet is documentation.  Sorry if it has and I've missed it.  If we take a step back and look through the eyes of the everyday user, I believe it would be very cumbersome and confusing to have books, tutorials, and articles that contained different namespaces due to an incremental approach.  The users would really have to be on top of the versions they are using while reading and trying to learn.  

The big bang approach, in my opinion, would make learning a bit easier from a users perspective.  If they were to pick up a book written on Jakarta EE 9, then all package renames would be documented...and the book would still be relevant down the road when Jakarta EE 10 or 11 are released.  It would be almost as if Jakarta EE 9+ is a completely new platform...a fresh start, as others have said.

If we were to choose an incremental approach, it seems that books and tutorials would almost be obsolete each time a new release comes out.  

Thanks for reading.

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:58 AM Rieon Ke <rieon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,
I have opened a PR to add transitive dependencies list,
Am I heading in the right direction?  is this what we want?

Rieon
_______________________________________________
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@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev