I listened a recording of the latest MicroProfile technical meeting where Jakarta Config was discussed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDpT_Gu2uX4&t=774s). I don't agree
in a way how Jakarta Config was presented there, it doesn't reflect the real situation. I even more disappointed that it was presented by Emily, who is one of the leaders.
The first and fundamental mistake is to think that Jakarta Config tries to build a new spec from scratch. It's not our goal. We want to get maximum from MP Config but before doing it we want to understand what we want to build.
The main concern about MP Config is that it was not build in truly vendor-neutral way. Technically it's not a specification at all because it was not created under any specification process. It's an open source API created by a few enthusiasts mostly from RedHat
and IBM. Although, I'm not saying that it's a bad API, but Jakarta cannot take it as it is without a deep review, without making sure that it fits all Jakarta EE requirements and without a consensus between all participating parties. This is what Jakarta Config
team is currently working on. We are trying to set some requirements and after that we'll decide how MP Config should be changed to address them. This new spec must become the only config spec suiting both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile. I agree that there is
no need to have 2 configs.
Talking about changes. We haven't finished our analysis and it's too early to provide a summary. So far, MP Config fits well into our requirements, but there are a few issues which I consider minor.
MicroProfile team pushing hard in all directions to force Jakarta Config to take MP Config as it is. We already had a several discussions about it. We will discuss it again on CN4J meeting. I personally believe that it's not right open source way of doing things.
Please stop doing it! I personally invited all MP Config committers to Jakarta Config team. So let's work together to build a spec which all parties will be happy with.
-- Dmitry
