Date:
RR> Just using application.properties is a good idea indeed.
RR> I am sure Ed and Jared will respond, but I believe the idea here
RR> is to allow both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile to evolve
RR> independently in accordance with their own needs and also
RR> collaborate when best seen fit.
Indeed, doing that now.
RC> A few comments inline. Thank you!
JA> This email is a follow up to the discussion at the 2025-02-04
JA> Jakarta EE platform call.
JA> In that call, we discussed an approach where Jakarta EE 12 could
JA> effectively use MicroProfile Config "as is" with some important
JA> non-technical accommodations.
JA> 1. The APIs for Jakarta Config would be the MicroProfile Config APIs,
JA> but with jakarta namespace. Yes, a copy/paste.
RC> After the initial copy/paste, how would things evolve?
My intention is that technical evolution would take place in the
MicroProfile Config project. In the event of Jakarta specific
accommodations, we would
1. Cross that bridge when we come to it.
2. Try to come up with solutions that are palatable to both communities, Jakarta
EE and MicroProfile.
3. If absolutely necessary, we would define content in MP Config that
would have the proviso such as "this only takes effect in Jakarta
EE environments". There is ample precedent for such approaches. See
what we did with Faces when Validation was present (in EE) vs. not
present (such as in Tomcat).
RC> Would Jakarta keep the APIs in-sync?
Yes. Every time Jakarta needed a new version, they would pick up a
chosen release of MP config to give the copy/paste treatment to.
RC> What restricts Jakarta from using the API as-is?
As far as I know:
1. A technical problem regarding introducing circular dependencies.
2. A non-technical problem where Jakarta specs may not make
dependencies on MicroProfile artifacts.
JA> 2. The implementation may delegate to the MicroProfile Config implementation.
JA> 3. The Spec document would be one-line: see the corresponding
JA> MicroProfile config spec document. May need additional text to
JA> talk about the difference in namespace and adding in
JA> jakarta-config.properties until a new MP Config version added that
JA> to its specification. See #5 below.
JA> 4. The TCK would be a copy/paste of the MicroProfile Config TCK
JA> and updating the name space and adding jakarta-config.properties
JA> testing
JA> 5. Need to introduce a new line in the ConfigSource (MicroProfile
JA> Config API) “Some configuration sources are known as default
JA> configuration sources. These configuration sources are normally
JA> available in all automatically-created configurations, and can be
JA> manually added to manually-created configurations as well. The
JA> default configuration sources are:
JA> 1. System properties, with an ordinal value of 400
JA> 2. Environment properties, with an ordinal value of 300
JA> 3. The /META-INF/jakarta-config.properties resource, with an ordinal value of 200
JA> 4. The /META-INF/microprofile-config.properties resource, with an
JA> ordinal value of 100
RC> How about dropping microprofile-config.properties (keep it for
RC> compatibility) and jakarta-config.properties, and use
RC> application.properties? This one is already used by many popular
RC> runtimes like Spring, Quarkus, and Micronaut, to name a few.
Roberto, that's a rad idea. I like it.
Ed
