[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[cn4j-alliance] Perspectives on technical relationship
|
I thought it might be useful for each of us to write our perspective on how we see the two projects align technically in principle.
The high-level Tomitribe perspective is basically:
- We see Jakarta EE as the brand behind which we can offer more stability to customers. We see MicroProfile as the brand behind which we can address parts of the market that are volatile.
- We've deliberately not created anything in MicroProfile that would compete with Java EE (now Jakarta EE). All specs are complimentary. We'd like to see this "no duplication" and "no competing" principle last and be bi-directional.
- We are happy to see specifications move from MicroProfile to Jakarta as needed. The Jakarta version of the spec would be under `jakarta`. The MicroProfile version would cease to be developed, but could still be shipped as frozen for a period of time.
None of the above should be confused with innovation. We don't see that innovation stops on a spec, regardless of where it is in its lifecycle.
It's really more about volatility of emerging sections of our industry where things are created and obsoleted quickly. By definition you can't create a stable spec on something that is itself unstable. In the past we did all of this under one brand and that has its own set of disadvantages and risks.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
