Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [cdi-dev] Specification backward compatibility requirements
Agree with Mark, CDI lite always had been rejected as being part of CDI spec by half of the participants and always had been thought as the replacement of the CDI full/core by the others so no real agreement there and it is very hard to get a relevant feedback with polls so at some point there should be a real governance @jakarta and it should be clearly/explicitly shared to end users (website, media, ...) to ensure it is well known that it is community driven or not.
As of today it seems clearly not - which is fine, lot of project are like that, but must be known upfront by end users and participants IMHO.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 30 janv. 2023 à 14:33, reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
I think this is now water under the bridge and was fine. I remember seeing the poll and discussion. I didn’t chime in because things seemed fine. It is a good idea to put polls like this on social media by working with the Eclipse Foundation.
 
From: cdi-dev <cdi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Ladislav Thon <lthon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 5:06 AM
To: cdi developer discussions <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [jakartaee-platform-dev] Specification backward compatibility requirements
 
Hi,

first off: wide consensus hasn't always been reached, but that doesn't mean that criticism has been ignored and not taken into account. As far as I can tell, we've always bent over backwards to reply, reply again, and as much as practically possible also satisfy all requests without compromising the end goal.

When it comes to the breaking change of empty beans.xml treatment specifically. This has been discussed extensively both on this mailing list:


As well as on the CDI meetings:

- 2021-01-12
- 2021-03-02
- 2021-04-13
- 2021-04-20
- 2021-04-27
- 2021-05-04
- 2021-05-11

We even had a poll that both CDI committers and users answered:


There were multiple options, all explained in decent amount of detail, and the one where empty beans.xml changes meaning from all to annotated discovery has won pretty clearly.

Now, I don't know if we broke some arcane process we weren't aware of -- but this certainly hasn't come as a surprise. The discussions about this change occurred 2 years ago -- there has certainly been plenty of time to raise this concern.

LT

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 9:23 PM Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good points!

CDI- 'lite' (which is actually not lighter but adds 40% classes in addition, creating even bigger and harder to maintain projects) could habe been done as optional 'CDI runtime extensions' feature. Criticism got raised from quite a hand full of current and former EG members, but all got ignored 

But then we are also back at the 'optional features' discussion. Those were afaiu officially forbidden only to release specs with optional features a few weeks later. Make the rules, break the rules...

LieGrue,
strub


Am 28.01.2023 um 21:04 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>:

Guess there are several good topics there:

1. Does EE becomes a new kind of project and no more a spec and portable abstraction with backward compat guarantees (which was until now the only value - but it is a key one for enterprise)?
1.bis. Does EE accept discussions and does a group on top of specs guarantees the well behaving and consistency as it was before or is it individual driven? (See 2.b for ex).
2. Does CDI work on its broken and with no common agreement issues
2.a. backward compat breakages (beansxml, dropped methods like event ones, ...). Most can be restored easily while nobody adopted it.
2.b. lite profile which is mainly done for an impl with *no* real gain in terms of perf (startup or runtime or even mem) and creates a very ambiguous state where it looks build time friendly whereas only runtime is defined by the spec so really exists and in this case means it just duplicates the api it adds so no user help but more a new mess. Also note community didnt agree on that at all and it was forced even if several alternative were proposed.


The drop of oracle driven dev mutated the ecosystem and the IT ecosystem changed too but EE does not highlight much benefit anymore for companies now due to the new behaviors and releases content (purely tech) so i guess a lot of efforts have to be done to either fix it or to assume it and explicit the project is no more related to its roots.
Both sound ok to me but staying in between is probably to kill itself slowly IMHO.

Hooe it makes sense.

Le sam. 28 janv. 2023 à 20:39, Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
For the record:

It seems the whole decision about whether to use semantic versioning is NOT settled yet.
The ticket for it is still open and unresolved to this very day:


I also found no VOTE about it on any list.

So to me it seems that the handling was not really kosher. Good at creating rules, even better at breaking them immediately..  
But then again, a more important question is: does it make sense for users/consumers of Jakarta EE? Is it worth for them, or does it only benefit one certain implementation (which is not even Jakarta EE but seems to be the origin of this change)?

Imo we should raise awareness that backward compatibility in the past used to be one of the key selling arguments pro JavaEE. Do we want to ditch this if there is no really good reason (as in this specific case, see my question list above)?

LieGrue,
strub


Am 28.01.2023 um 20:13 schrieb Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@lycoscom>:

Looping in the CDI mailing list so that the right folks can provide additional context.

My guess is that these decisions were not taken particularly lightly. I think it is easy to see performance is a key value proposition for CDI Lite/Jakarta EE Core runtimes. There is some evidence to suggest that this line of thinking actually is making Jakarta EE more relevant to newer audiences.

On 1/28/2023 1:28 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Sorry, but the whole referenced email threads does NOT cover pruning rules at all!

The whole question is about guaranteed stability over a forseeable version range.
I have no problem with deprecating features.??
I also have no problem with pruning long time deprecated code.

But I DO have a problem with intentionally (or planlessly) breaking backward compatibility from one EE version to the next *WITHOUT* any reason!

For swapping the default meaning of empty beans.xml files please ask yourself:
* was there really no other way to solve the problem?
* was there a groundbreaking new feature which would not have been possible without this change?
* was this change thus really technically necessary?
* was it worth to break the world just because someone thought it might be funny?

Please elaborate!

txs and LieGrue,
strub


PS: failures as such can happen, no problem. But then let's solve/undo those failures and not codify them!


Am 28.01.2023 um 17:43 schrieb Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>:

I created an issue to update the page:

I don't know that there was ever a formal vote, but the context is found in this issue and platform thread.

https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/449


On Jan 28, 2023 at 7:00:22 AM, Ondro Mih??lyi <mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would also like to see the discussion or minutes from a meeting where this was decided. I believe that this is a thing that requires a ballot.

It??s true that we had to bend the rules for Jakarta EE 9, but it's not a reason to keep bending the rules for all the future releases. It's also true that Jakarta EE 10 dropped some deprecated functionality, which used to be allowed in Java EE but the rules for Jakarta EE in https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/CompatibilityRequirements don't cover this option. Even if those rules are still valid, they aren't complete, and even state this explicitly in one place:

XXX - This section needs to be updated with new rules for the actual removal of APIs and specifications from the Jakarta EE platform as anticipated in Jakarta EE 9, similar to what???s done for the Java SE platform.

I suggest that we update the https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/CompatibilityRequirements page to be up to date with the current Backwards Compatibility Requirements (Decided by whom? Jakarta EE Steering or Specification Committee??? ). We can't accept that we have an official document that we don't follow, and, on the other hand, have some unwritten non-transparent agreement that some of us follow.



All the best,
Ondro Mihalyi

Director, Jakarta EE expert
OmniFish - Jakarta EE Consulting & Support | www.omnifish.ee
Omnifish O??, Narva mnt 5, 10117 Tallinn, Estonia | VAT: EE102487932

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 12:10 PM Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wow, really. I'm speechless.

Do the people who decide such things IN THE DARK (aka undocumented it seems) mean this serious?
I mean, really this got nowhere made public, was it? Please point me to the articles covering this!

That would imo TOTALLY ditch the whole purpose of JavaEE / JakartaEE in my eyes.
If a project wants to use quickly evolving technologies, then they do usually NOT choose JavaEE.
JavaEE - in my experience - was previously chosen by companies and governmental organisations whose primary goal is stability over a very long period of time. We are talking in 5 to 10 years of stability. Now when you folks ditch this, then I fear we will loose banks, governments, etc. Those 'slow moving dinosaurs' in my experience used to be the main users of JavaEE. They provide the main money, they have the most code running in JavaEE.

There is a good reason why people used to say "JavaEE is these days COBOL". That's because COBOL apps are running till today. Like many JavaEE apps I see at customers. Many of them older than 10 years, but still perfectly maintainable.

And for container vendors: why should I pass a TCK if the rules are totally turned around in 2 years anyway? I mean this is a joke, really :(

LieGrue,
strub


PS: Scott, I understand you are just the messenger, so no personal offense meant.



Am 28.01.2023 um 05:47 schrieb Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>:

We have switched to a semantic versioning approach, but I don't see that this was captured in that page or elsewhere. That notion of backwards compatibility was completely violated in the EE 8 to EE 9 release due to the package rename, and in general, maintaining such stringent backwards compatibility was seen as counterproductive to evolving the platform.


On Jan 27, 2023 at 1:08:14 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev

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


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

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
<449.png><449.png>_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev

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

Back to the top