Many of you are part of the MicroProfile community. Can we
start by finding out whether you think the JESP is suitable
for MicroProfile work, and if not what you would change? If
we were having this discussion on the MicroProfile community mailing
list, what would you say there?
We may still not end up with something that is acceptable to all
members of the MicroProfile community, but we would at least be
closer.
Kevin Sutter wrote on 2/22/19 6:11 AM:
For everyone's awareness...
Myself
and others have been working with Mike M on how and when to
present this
issue to the MP community. If myself or John just bring it
forward
to the MP community, there will be too many questions for
Eclipse where
we will need Mike's involvement. The Think prep and conference
took
away a chunk of time, at least for me personally. Hopefully, we
will
get something lined up soon to present this issue/question to
the MP community.
---------------------------------------------------
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:
Werner Keil
<werner.keil@xxxxxxx>
To:
Jakarta specification
committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
02/22/2019 05:31 AM
Subject:
Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
MicroProfile use of Jakarta EESpecification Process
Sent by:
jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Mark/all,
Kevin and John are the MP project
leaders,
so they are constantly involved.
Having any conversation in the MP
mailing
list would likely lead to a lot of noise like we see in other
cases and
even there only a small number of people would provide useful
input while
a lot of others came with the whole “Oracle should not be in the
file
headers” mess again or “MicroProfile is a corporate entity” as
we heard
in comparable places again.
I guess to get a consolidated
opinion on
ways MicroProfile could use either of the Specification
processes, John,
Kevin, maybe you Mark should formulate a proper thread to those
interested
on the MP mailing list or elsewhere (e.g. in its relevant calls)
and then
bring it back into this group.
Werner
Sent from Mailfor Windows 10
From: Mark
Little
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 11:24
To: Jakarta
specification committee
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile use
of Jakarta
EESpecification Process
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.
On 21 Feb 2019, at 15:29, Kevin
Sutter
<sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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/kevinwsutter
From: Richard
Monson-Haefel <rmonson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 02/21/2019
08:42 AM
Subject: Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile use of Jakarta EE
Specification
Process
Sent 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-Haefel
https://twitter.com/rmonson
https://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@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
---
Mark Little
mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx
JBoss, 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)
_______________________________________________
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
|
