Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [External] : Additional profiles

[Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>]

There should not be any deployment format requirement at this level because we are talking about a profile that would align with runtimes that operate on single jars or even native images.

I think the topic of requiring jakarta based specifications vs importing other specifications is a big open topic. An annotation by itself is not usable as the primary aspect of the configuration spec is the externalized config information and the mappings from that format to the native Java formats.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 4:41 AM Dmitry Kornilov <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We talked a lot about which specs should or should not be included in the core profile. I would like to go a little beyond this topic and talk about two things which are not clear to me. The first is what kind of deployment model should we use? 

Logically it should support the standard Jakarta EE deployment model assuming using war/ear archives and supporting multiple deployments. It will provide maximum portability between Jakarta profiles. On the other hand it’s an overhead for the smallest profile. In the most cases microservice is one application, so multiple applications support maybe not needed. XML-based deployment descriptors are something from the last century. We actually don’t want to include any XML processing specs to the core profile and even made them optional in the main Jakarta profile. I am trying to say that maybe deployment specification needs a rework to support more modern approach like yaml or json files or even be based on configuration spec. It’s one of the options. Another option would be using executable jar files the same way as in Spring Boot, Helidon, Quarkus, etc. This approach has many advantages such as unnecessary class loading madness, potential GraalVM native-image support, etc.

Another topic is configuration. There is no doubt that configuration specification is needed in Jakarta. Potentially we can use MicroProfile Config, but we immediately have namespace problems. IMO, Jakarta profile must use/depend on Jakarta specifications only. Recently I talked with Tomas Langer (Helidon architect) and he had an idea of creating a minimalistic config specification in Jakarta which contains one annotation - @ConfigValue. More functionality can be added later. MicroProfile Config can depend on Jakarta Config. It will make possible using MP Config implementations in Core Profile implementations. It makes sense to me.

I would like to hear your opinions.

-- Dmitry

On 18. 3. 2021, at 10:51, Dmitry Kornilov <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 17. 3. 2021, at 23:44, Emily Jiang via jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think the Cloud Profile from Ivar's doc  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1THhvjZazSFpDE95rqtcdQXgBQxa-B3aMFksq8xKJo08/edit#slide=id.g786c259e4b_0_101should be renamed to the core profile and the list is a good start. By the way, I don't want to see EJB on the Core profile list. CDI is the replacement for EJB. 

 

 I think this list can be further shortened to:

JAX-RS

JSON-B

Annotation

Bean Validation

CDI

Config

Security

CDI contains Injection, no need to mention Injection I think.

Since we have JSON-B, do we still need JSON-P?

We need both JSONP and JSONB.

-- Dmitry

Thanks

Emily

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 3:14 PM arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 3:33 PM Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think either it is best to leave Web Profile mostly alone (and maybe prune it) or use it as a more effective replacement to Full Profile (and basically treat the Full Profile as mostly legacy).

I would like to see the latter option. Speaking with my Piranha Cloud hat on; we're not looking forward to implementing things like the Application Client Container, EAR support, and some of the more obscure aspects of Corba and EJB2 and whatever else still lingers in EJB-full.

Moving at least Concurrency and Authorization to Web Profile (for Authorization, perhaps for simplicity make it a sub-spec of Security), and perhaps a Messaging lite (Messaging with only the newer, simplified API) and Mail, would make the Web Profile essentially the Legacy Free Profile that has been talked about before.

When Concurrency absorbs most of the still useful EJB-based services in an CDI version, EJB-lite can be safely pruned from the Web Profile, IMHO.

Kind regards,

Arjan

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev

-- 

Thanks
Emily

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!LIry2y8KlDpW6rUynIJ5upLsWt56u_tWjo98jJytP27iquVQ6IgodpQzS5BqAwl9f3M2$

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!OEWfJIqfOCJX65wS261z3w1esVzuyIkrtAgVpUgW2Y6u6amQ8rEU--bUHhzViu-AaWHM$

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev