My memory might be flaky, however regardless of my memory we need
to make sure all the people that need to be involved in the
discussion are aware and have an opportunity voice their opinion.
My concern is that cn4j mailing list does not have right
subscribers. BTW I have no objections of adding cn4j mailing list
in addition to other mailing lists is fine. We are in full
agreement to involve technical people for technical topics, and
for the governance we need involve on the Jakarta EE side we
should involve the Steering Committee. Jakarta EE Platform is not
dealing with governance related issues. I will surely bring this
discussion to the Jakarta EE Steering Committee.
Hi Tanja,
thanks for your input, but I remember
the agreement about collaboration a little bit different:
When there are tasks, that will affect both WGs, they should be
discussed in CN4J, as this is a neutral ground for collaboration
between MicroProfile and Jakarta WGs.
Technical and organisational aspects can be discussed there and
decisions can be made, but (important fact) these are not
binding to the involved WGs. Instead, each WG need to vote
internally in their responsible organisation according to their
rules to make binding decisions.
But decisions need to be prepared in
a way both sides can live with - that's why I started the
discussion there as it was discussed in yesterdays Jakarta
Platform Call and MicroProfile Community call to do it there.
So from my point of view, we are at the point to have that
discussion, as there is a request to have something like
MicroProfile Config as Jakarta Config available in Jakarta (Core
Profile) now and people from MicroProfile need to be involved,
including especially people, that are interested in their
integration (like vendors supporting both in a single product
etc.).
We need to solve technical issues up to Software Architecture
related aspects and also organisational aspects like release
management and governance.
Another agreement of collaboration
was not building redundant specs too, and to be compliant to
that, just creating something similar in Jakarta would violate
that - this should be prevented! Instead the spec should moved
in a way both sides to can live and benefit from make this
feature available to Jakarta Component Specs too.
Jareds push forward is very welcomed,
but now we need to wider the scope to bing everybody on board
and finding the best and future prove solution for both WGs -
and that goes beyond the scope of the Jakarta Config mailing
list - that should be discussed in the CN4J mailing list.
Of course, this does not mean I wanted to prevent other
discussions, I want wo make sure the topics are addressed to the
right mailing list - and as you are listed them below, there are
a lot of mailing list options where discussions about a config
spec could and should happen. I.e. when there is an agreement
where to do which task, detailed work will be done in the
corresponding Component Spec mailing list, architecture and
organisational aspects in probably both Umbrella Spec projects
mailing list and final decisions on the WG level.
So, this task is a (pull) request (restarted) from the Jakarta
side to move a spec from MicroProfile to Jakarta - why not
having the discussion on the CN4J mailing list, as we discussed
the topic on Umbrella Spec level the last month and delegating
it there now?
I fully agree to inform all the
relevant mailing lists about this and would be happy to get help
with this - I tried to do it yesterday with the announcement on
the Umbrella Spec level (MicroProfile WG and Jakarta Platform
Dev), according to the meetings discussions.
A technical problem in having the discussion in more than one
mailing list in parallel is the fact, that conversation breaks
up in mailing lists, where a replier in not part of - so
concentrating on a singe one and announcing it on multiple ones
seems to me the way to overcome this restriction at best.
Best,
Jan
Am 06.02.25 um 10:42 schrieb Tanja
Obradovic:
Hi Jan, All,
this is a very important discussion that is of interest to
both Working Groups. Each Working Group needs to discuss
internally and decide what their needs independently and
freely, before a common discussion starts, at least that was
agreed upon a few years ago.
In order to do that and to make sure we involve the community
and all people that have a say in these technical decisions, I
do not think cn4j-alliance is sufficient mailing list.
Here is why:
CN4J mailing list does not contain the full technical community
CNJ4 mailing list has (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/cn4j-alliance ) 82 subscribers and both communities need to recognize that not everyone is interested in being subscribed to this mailing list. Also it is not a mailing list necessarily focused on technical discussions.
- Technical mailing lists
Microprofile mailing lists
As you can notice it will be far
more effective to have and continue a discussion as
Jared initiated in the this email
thread, involving Jakarta Config mailing list, but
would suggest to consult MP leads on what MP mailing list
needs to be used. Jakarta EE Platform team should be
consulted on when they would like to be looped into this
conversation.
I hope you all find this helpful.
Best,
Tanja
On 2025-02-05 10:29 a.m., Jan
Westerkamp via jakartaee-platform-dev wrote:
Hi,
as discussed yesterday in the Jakarta Platform and
MicroProfile Community Call, I started the discussion on the
future of Jakarta Config and MiroProfile Config in the
following thread:
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cn4j-alliance/msg00219.html
Please join it there, if you are interested!
Thanks,
Jan
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev