[microprofile-wg] MicroProfile and

[John Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Based on relatively recent discussions, Red Hat is concerned that specifications defined in MicroProfile may get forked into Jakarta EE. We have been having discussions on this topic for a month or so, and I took the action item of having the discussion on the microprofile-wg email alias.. The discussion was generated due to Red Hat’s proposed MicroProfile ballot (draft) verbiage:

”Resolved, the MicroProfile Steering Committee agrees to utilize Jakarta EE specifications in whole or part by reference and not by forking a Jakarta EE specification"

However, if we were to vote, then we would desire a reciprocal Jakarta EE Working Group, similar to the following:

”Resolved, the Jakarta EE Steering Committee agrees to utilize MicroProfile specifications in whole or part by reference and not by forking a MicroProfile specification"

To summarize where we are at with the discussion:

• There is already some layering and/or referencing in place - MicroProfile layers on Jakarta specs in whole (JAX-RS, CDI, etc) and in part (JWT layers on some Java Security APIs like isCallerInRole() ).

• We would like Jakarta EE to take a similar approach, and reference MicroProfile APIs instead of forking

• We would like to gain consensus within MicroProfile, and then have the conversation with the Jakarta EE working group (perhaps via CN4J).

• Status (feel free to correct):

• Red Hat supports this proposal

• Tomitribe supports this proposal (in the context of Intellectual Property)

• Microsoft feels that if MP/Jakarta can attain technical alignment (ex: API by reference) and maintain vendor neutrality, then it is a step towards supporting this proposal

The remaining question is, is this sufficient context for us to engage Jakarta EE to attain alignment, or are there any outstanding issues to address before engaging Jakarta EE Working Group?