Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT][MicroProfile Metrics 5.0] Specification - Release Review - VOTE by Dec 6th (2 weeks)
-1 (iJUG)

Why:
I have two findings - one is almost addressed by this issue, but unfortunately not completely: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/issues/752

As Jakarta Core Profile (https://jakarta.ee/specifications/coreprofile/10/) and so MP 6.0 requires Java SE 11 as minimum runtime version, defining Java SE 8 (1.8) in the TCK README.adoc (the TCK manual, lower part) as minimum version is highly misleading, as the defined outdated plugin versions too. Changing this regularly would require a major release as this would be a breaking change, so I would suggest we should treat this as a bug and this should be fixed now or in a service release of MP Metrics 5.0.
In this late state, I expect the last option will be the MPWG will go for - so my vote is undermining the need for that fix.

I also had a finding regarding the Maven module structure: The TCK submodules are declared as submodules of MP Metrics Parent directly (instead as submodules of in the MP Metrics TCK submodule) and to get the back reference, relative paths to the POM are defined. These will be only valid during build time in the Git repository but break while during runtime in the artifacts - this should be refactored. I will create an issue for that...


In general, deviating from Red Hat's comment, I think MP Metrics has still a valid role (for now), as it provides a stable metrics API.
From my view, OpenTelemetry Metrics will be the future for metrics handing too, but MP Metrics is implementation agnostic and an implementation could be based upon OpenTelemetry Metrics, which follows semver rules, but excludes telemetry data from that currently - so breaking changes are allowed at the moment (OpenTelemetry Schema will change this hopefully soon).
MP Metrics provides this production ready stability, at least until OpenTelemetry Metrics reaches it and the ecosystem has migrated to it.

Best,
Jan


Am 22.11.22 um 19:45 schrieb Emily Jiang via microprofile-wg:
To approve and ratify the Release Review of MicroProfile Metrics 5.0 Specification, the Steering Committee Representatives vote is requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject).  Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.

The MicroProfile Specification Process requires the Specification Committee and the Community to provide feedback during the approval process using the relevant documents:


This ballot will be fourteen days, ending on Tuesday, December 6th.  However, it will be great if you can vote before December 2nd. The ballot requires a Super-majority positive vote of the Steering Committee members.  There is no veto. Community input and Community votes are welcomed. However, only the votes delivered by Steering Committee Representatives will be counted.

--

Thank you

Emily Jiang on behalf of the MicroProfile Steering Committee




_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg


Back to the top