| Kevin, the MP community can’t understand anything unless they’re involved in the conversation. Let’s move this to an appropriate thread there and begin that education. And I agree with you that going there and saying it’s EFSP or JESP isn’t right - I had that exact conversation with MikeM back in January and he did produce an email draft for the MP community along the lines he and I discussed: lay out the problem statement first and then show potential solutions; if the community understand the problem and they don’t like the solutions then at least they can start to discuss alternatives if they exist. Not sure if that email was ever sent.
Mark.
Yes and no, Richard. I agree that
this is a conversation for the MicroProfile community. But, the MP
community needs to understand the options and the parameters of our specification
process going forward. The current EFSP and JESP imply certain restrictions
on the use by other Eclipse projects. And, the Jakarta EE team has
always hoped for the eventual inclusion of MicroProfile efforts. So,
how do we resolve these inconsistencies or hiccups? As I mentioned
below, if we just go to the MP community with the options of the EFSP and
JESP as currently defined, I think they would be rejected. Again,
imho. But, that doesn't help the long-term relationship between these
two projects and communities. So, I think Bill's questions are valid.
If the EFSP/JESP are not acceptable to the MP community, does Jakarta
EE care? That's the basic question.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutterFrom:
Richard Monson-Haefel
<rmonson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>To:
Jakarta specification
committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date:
02/21/2019 08:42 AMSubject:
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
MicroProfile use of Jakarta EE Specification ProcessSent by:
jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 This is really a conversation for the MP community. Jakarta
EE may leverage work done by the MP, but it's not our place on this specification
body to determine the merits of having MP adopt the EFSP. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:24 AM Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:Bill,
I was talking with Tanja and others at Think last week about this exact
issue... I have a TODO to perform a thorough review of the proposed
process and how it might or might not work with MicroProfile. But,
only speaking for myself (not the whole community), I don't see how the
EFSP nor the JESP will allow the MicroProfile community to continue to
drive innovation at a sufficient pace to keep up with our past history.
Yesterday's discussion even cemented some of those views. We were
talking about minimum or maximum amount of time for each of the review
cycles. At one point, we discussed how did the JCP do it. If
we fall back to the JCP rules all the time, we've lost (imho). The
JCP worked back in its day, but given the industry today, I don't see how
it can thrive. Granted, the stream-lined JCP that is in place for
the quicker paced Java SE releases is better. But, most of the experiences
that we discuss in these Jakarta EE calls relates back to the old mechanisms.
(Aside... Maybe we need to look at how Java is doing releases every
6 months... JEPs seem to be pretty easy to get through the process,
and then a JSR is used to actually push through the next Java 11, 12, xx
release. That's my 10,000 foot view of the process. Do we need
to look at something like this?)
So, could MicroProfle utilize the EFSP and/or JESP as currently defined?
I doubt it. Not for the many component and platform releases that
the MicroProfile community has produced. In just over two years,
we have produced 22 component releases (ie. MP Config 1.x, MP Fault Tolerance
2.x, etc) and 8 platform releases (ie. MicroProfile 1.x, 2.x). Given
the required timelines that we discussed yesterday, there is no way we
could have done all of this in two years. Going forward, we are looking
to produce three MicroProfile platform releases per year (Feb, June, Oct)
with several component releases through out the year. Some of these
component releases are stand-alone and some are part of the platform.
Besides the MicroProfile question, we also have to look at this from a
competition viewpoint. We have stated that Jakarta EE is the new
home for Cloud Native Java. My anecdotal evidence from speaking at
and soliciting comments from many conferences is that Spring is still the
king of Cloud Native Java. We are going to have to figure out how
the JESP will allow Jakarta EE to compete with Spring. MicroProfile
is making some inroads on this front, but we're still small potatoes compared
to Spring's presence -- especially in production environments. I
think we're making good progress with development environments, but production
is still behind. If MicroProfile is "forced" to use the
JESP (as currently defined), then I think we lose this race as well.
Another thought... I know MicroProfile has some IP issues to deal
with. I've talked with several people that indicate that we need
to do something in this area to protect the IP rights for the MicroProfile
community. But, why does resolving this IP issue mean that MicroProfile
has to adopt the EFSP/JESP? Rather than whether MicroProfile should
adopt the EFSP/JESP, I think the real question is whether another derivation
(MicroProfile Spec Process?) could be developed to allow our community
to continue to move forward and have our IP rights protected? Currently,
that's not allowed since MicroProfile is not part of a Working Group.
Maybe that needs to be re-addressed...
This note is getting much longer than I anticipated... But, you can
see that I've been thinking about this. I just haven't put pen to
paper yet... I have several other thoughts related to this whole
effort and how it affects both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile. But,
let's start with this initial thought dump and see where it goes...
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From: Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 02/20/2019
03:33 PM
Subject: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
MicroProfile use of Jakarta EE Specification
Process
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
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
_______________________________________________
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-- Richard Monson-Haefelhttps://twitter.com/rmonsonhttps://www.tomitribe.com/_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
--- Mark Little mlittle@xxxxxxxxxxJBoss, by Red Hat Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork. Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873 Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
|
