Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE

+1

Moving specs from MP to Jakarta doesn’t make sense. It also sends the wrong signal that the only way in which (stable?) MP specs should be consumed is through a Jakarta EE implementation. We have several non-Jakarta EE implementations today in the MP ecosystem and I see that as a strength.

Mark.


On 19 Jan 2021, at 21:32, Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I agree with everything you state except need to move the MP config itself to Jakarta.  So far I don't understand why we have to move working groups to do this.  I read that there may be some circularity issue that would pose an issue for building the specifications?  Would not moving MP config to Jakarta also introduce a circularity issue for future MP releases that now need to consume the latest from Jakarta?

Tom
 
 
 
----- Original message -----
From: Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: "cn4j-alliance" <cn4j-alliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE
Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2021 2:49 PM
 
I meant that they were originally planned to be done for Java EE 8, via the JCP. So there was nothing to transition ;)

 
It's a past statement. I don't think there is much value to discuss what might have been included in Java EE 8.
 
I disagree with forking and changing namespaces. It is unnecessary and causes unnecessary migration.
 
I also disagree with two configs existing in both Jakarta and MicroProfile. It is a recipe for confusion and disaster.
 
I think moving MP Config to Jakarta while retaining the same namespace is a better option.
 
Thanks
Emily
 
 
 
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:21 PM arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
 
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:43 PM Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, many and APIs were not intended to ever transition to the JCP. 
 
I meant that they were originally planned to be done for Java EE 8, via the JCP. So there was nothing to transition ;)
 
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
 
 
_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance


--
Thanks
Emily
 
_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
 

_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance


Back to the top