Splitting this thread. In the case of MicroProfile support the wider issue is do the wider project team want GlassFish to be a compatible implementation of MicroProfile ? I know that some downstream
derived implementations already are e.g. fujitsu/launcher: Launcher - MicroProfile implementation (github.com).
If so;
what version of MP? 6?
the full platform of MP?
Which version of GF?
how? Custom built, Small Rye, Helidon, Payara code repackaged, other component?
how should they be integrated and what is the developer and operator experience?
Who is doing it?
Does it happen all at once or drip feed into the platform 1 spec at a time?
My wider point is none of this has been discussed or is on any release plan. It all feels random to me and that is not good for the wider community.
From: glassfish-dev <glassfish-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of arjan tijms
Sent: 08 December 2022 22:58
To: glassfish developer discussions <glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [glassfish-dev] Proposed Process for New Features, release plans post 7 Final
IMHO reviewing completed PRs for a new feature is not a good process.
There sure have been arguments against and in favour of that approach. As an example though, CDI Lite started in the same way. A PR, based on which discussion started. Of course a PR is never necessarily complete.
It's a pull *request* after all, and reviewers can ask for changes (there's an explicit option for that in GitHub reviews).
In the case of the JWT PR, it's in the core a jar being added, and in addition to that a runner for the MP JWT TCK. There would hardly be more to discuss in an issue as what the PR entails:
Add a test for this (preferably the TCK)
This is perhaps different from the re-design of a subsystem or development of a complete new feature with lots of code within the GF code base itself. That could have some serious discussion about how to approach
it, but adding a jar? What would we really have to discuss upfront there, or what can we even discuss?
I see you disagree with the proposal?
Not necessarily. The comment above was primarily about whether the MP feature additions had suitable reviews or not.
Regarding the proposal, obviously it's good to discuss things where needed, but keep in mind that a discussion needs at least two parties. Seeing that the response to requests for reviews is lackluster at least,
I'm not holding my breath really. That being said, it's probably good to at least start discussions indeed.
I do think we can do this without an overbearing process.
Rationale: It has been raised to me as project lead (Note: not by Payara committers) that the incorporation of MicroProfile capabilities without planning, discussion and without suitable review has been problematic for some.
The PR to add MicroProfile config support had been open for 115 days. That should, IMHO, be enough time for anyone who may think it's problematic to say something about it. At least something from Oracle took
a look at it, and then of course two people from OmniFish. The contribution was from an external person. In open source we should be happy with contributions, and don't reject them simply because we had not put them on a plan a year ago (open source generally
doesn't work like that).
The PR to add MicroProfile jwt support was open for less time, but committers from multiple organizations were requested to review, including Payara. It was their choice however to not respond. Given the nature
of open source and version control people can raise concerns and ask for a revert after a PR has been merged, but this too did not happen. Besides OmniFish, an independent GlassFish committer looked at the PR as well.
Altogether it seems to me the reviews have been suitable.
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
_______________________________________________
glassfish-dev mailing list
glassfish-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/glassfish-dev
|