Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile use of Jakarta EE Specification Process
If we define a Jakarta EE Specification Process that even the current participants don't believe is acceptable to MicroProfile, then there's zero chance that the MicroProfile community will move to Jakarta EE at any point in the future.

Stop designing the JESP as a replacement for the JCP and start designing it as an Eclipse process for use by MicroProfile and Jakarta EE.

No one has explained why any of the good things about the current MicroProfile process are things that we don't want for Jakarta EE.

Do you want Jakarta EE to move slower than MicroProfile?  I don't.

Think of this process that we're designing as a replacement for the current MicroProfile process that preserves all the good things and addresses the IP concerns that the Eclipse Foundation has.  If we start from that perspective, why would we not end up with something suitable for Jakarta EE?

Whether the MicroProfile and Jakarta EE communities actually merge is a question for the future, but right now we need a process that enables them to merge.

And we don't need a "one size fits all" process.  We've already split the process in two by adding Service Releases.  If we need another path through the process that allows you to move faster but with a different set of tradeoffs, we can do that.  We can handle "incubating" specs different than "committed" specs, for example.  Or we can handle "javax" specs different than "jakarta" specs.  Be creative.  Find a way.

Many of you know what you want out of a MicroProfile process.  Don't allow this process to be defined in a way that doesn't give you what you want.  I mean, why would you do that?  Why would you want the Jakarta EE process to be worse than the MicroProfile process?



Wayne Beaton wrote on 2/21/19 8:31 AM:
IMHO, how Eclipse MicroProfile adopts the EFSP is separate discussion that should be engaged in with the Eclipse MicroProfile community.

I am, of course, interested in learning how we can tune, update, and otherwise modify the EFSP to meet the needs of Eclipse MicroProfile and how that work (eventually) impacts a future version of the JESP.

It seems like a natural fit that Eclipse MicroProfile one day joins Jakarta EE, but this is not on our critical path to move forward.

At this point, we need to focus on getting a specification process that we can live with for the Jakarta EE Working Group.

Wayne

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:33 PM Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just a reminder that I'll still waiting for feedback on this issue:
I'd like to get an assurance from each MicroProfile participant that the JESP would be suitable for MicroProfile, and if not exactly what changes would be required to make it so.
Note that I'm not asking you to speak for the MicroProfile community as a whole.  I just want to know from each of you (who participates in the MicroProfile community) if you would support the MicroProfile community using the Jakarta EE Specification Process.

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee


--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.


_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee

Back to the top