Totally understood. I will coordinate. I think you have already contributed quite a bit. Let's have a few others do their part too.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2/3/21 5:46 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE
Hi Reza,
Sorry, I am running behind. I think it is a good idea to get Arjan and Edwin or maybe others to create a survey or blog post etc to move forward. Besides, it is great to get more people involved. I am happy to contribute to the effort if needed. I will try to create a few slides to take to the CN4J discussion in due course.
Just wanted to quickly check - are you working on moving the analysis forward in the form of a blog post and survey? I l know a couple of other folks like Arjan and Edwin had an interest in moving it forward and engaging the broader community as well.
No hurry of course!
Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE
Thank you Reza for expressing your thoughts constructively! I've merged most of your contents to mine. Please check to see whether I missed anything. Let's continue the discussion on this doc. I've tweeted about this doc. As a consequence, I have restricted the edit access right. You can still comment on it. I plan to run a twitter poll towards the end of next week. Thoughts?
What I tried to do is make the options clearer to the average
user so they may be able to understand the trade-offs a bit more
easily. I also tried to be as inclusive and objective as possible
(although I think that is difficult for most). If the changes seem
OK, it may be best to just merge the two documents (I guess I am
mostly looking for Emily to do that).
I hope this helps. I think the analysis as it stands is in good
shape.
Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual
community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
On 1/21/2021 1:08 PM, Emily Jiang
wrote:
You're right Emily. Thanks for answering, and I agree
mostly with that.
There's of course an advantage to not changing the
package, but there's obviously also an advantage (IMHO) to
do change them.
Kind regards,
Arjan
Thank you Arjan! Yes, I agree none of the options is
perfect.
+1 Reza! I have taken a shot of creating this doc. I listed some options
there with cons/pros. Everyone should be able to add their
opinion with con/pro there.
I think it would be helpful to write some of this down in
a pro/con format. I think that could help inform further
discussion that may not take place here and also help
inform all the developers out there. If no one else wants
to take that up, I can.
Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an
individual community member and do not reflect the views
of my employer.
Sadly we cannot rewrite the history. Since
now we have two package names, there is not much
value to change the namespace again. Besides, MP
and Jakarta are working together under CN4J
towards a full stack of Cloud Native foundation.
There should be no superiority comparison
between them but the collaboration and
acceptance.
You're right Emily. Thanks for answering, and I
agree mostly with that.
There's of course an advantage to not changing
the package, but there's obviously also an
advantage (IMHO) to do change them.
