Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [microprofile-wg] Addressing EE/MP cooperation

Hi Scott:

I totally understand the roles for MicroProfile and Jakarta EE.  I respect your position that this is "good practice in specification work," but I strongly feel the need to make a couple of comments:

[a] You make it sound that the MicroProfile specifications are, for the most part, not "useful" until some criteria has been met.
[b] If I understand everything correctly, Red Hat views MicroProfile as a means to "harvest" specifications when the time is right.

MicroProfile already consumes Jakarta EE specifications (CDI, JSON-P, etc.) that have the history going back to Java EE 7.  So why can't the opposite be true??

I didn't understand why there was a need to create a Jakarta Config specification when the MicroProfile Config specification is quite capable of handling configuration in Jakarta EE applications.  We already use it in Jakarta NoSQL.  And I won't even get into the proposal to harvest MicroProfile JWT.

I'm a strong advocate for both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile.  I serve as a committer to the Jakarta Data and Jakarta NoSQL specifications, and the Garden State JUG serves on both working groups.  I totally agree that we should all learn how to work together.  But, it shouldn't come at the cost of one group taking specifications from another.

I look forward to discussing this further in 2023.

Mike.


On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:25 AM Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are pulling up this comment we made out of a long conversation on the Jakarta platform dev list for wider visibility.

Red Hat’s view is that Jakarta EE (EE) should focus on maintaining stability and backwards compatibility as the primary usage for us is EE app modernization via microservices and cloud environment enablement. MicroProfile (MP) features are available for microservice deployment modernization which evolves more rapidly. Once a MicroProfile feature is seen to be useful, integration into an EE architecture that has been able to upgrade past the EE 9.1/EE10 incompatibilities should not see further arbitrary incompatibilities due to yet more namespace changes. EE should strive to extend MP specifications where possible to avoid unnecessary impact on users of EE and MP, and simply put, this is a good practice in specification work. The lack of agreement on rules of engagement via the CN4J alliance, along with the discussions around MP JWT leaves us to believe that competition is where the two working groups appear to be heading. Red Hat is strongly opposed to competing specification based working groups, and until the current competitive stances are resolved and clarified, Red Hat will be reducing activity and sponsorship on all matters other than the resolution of this competition/collaboration issue.

The respective steering committees need to take this topic up in earnest next year.
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg


--
Code, TestWrite, Cycle, Run, Drink, Sleep ... Repeat
Lead Java Queue Editor, InfoQ

Laissez Les Bon Temps Rouler

Back to the top