| Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] MicroProfile 7.0 Release Proposal 1. Vote by June 12, 2023 |
|
+1 (Fujitsu) -Kenji Kazumura From: microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of John Clingan Ballot text: "Resolved, the MicroProfile Steering Committee approves the MicroProfile 7.0 proposal 1 to support a minimum Jakarta EE Version" The proposal 1 text is pasted below from the MicroProfile 7 release proposal document. This is the vote thread. Feedback/discussion, if needed, should be given in a separate thread with the subject of [DISCUSSION][Proposal 1][MP 7.0]. A Steering Committee Representatives vote is requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject). Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated. This ballot runs for seven days, so it ends on June 12th, 2023. The ballot requires a Simple-majority positive vote of the Steering Committee members. There is no veto. Community input and Community votes are welcomed.
However, only the votes delivered by Steering Committee Representatives will be counted. ----------
Proposal 1: MicroProfile releases support a minimum Jakarta EE versions
o
The minimum Jakarta EE version would be specified in the MicroProfile umbrella specification like it currently is in the component specifications.
§
The minimum Jakarta EE Core Profile version would be 10 for MicroProfile 7
o
The Jakarta EE Core Profile API jar will be marked provided in the pom.xml as they are for the component specifications.
o
MP Implementations must pass the Jakarta EE TCK for the version and profile they implement.
o
It is expected that MP implementations and community will actively be participating in new EE releases, passing both TCKs and surfacing compatibility
issues eagerly.
§
Whenever a new EE release happens, MP needs to review whether the current release works with the new EE release. If not, a new MP release needs
to be done as soon as possible
o
If there are backwards compatibility issues that would prevent an implementation from passing the respective TCKs, those kinds of issues would
need to be addressed through the specification process (i.e. a major, minor or service release).
§
In the event proposal 1 is not possible because an implementation is not able to pass the TCK of both Jakarta EE.latest and MicroProfile, this
would be addressed through a MicroProfile spec update (essentially proposal 3).
o
MP Certification Requests (CCRs) must specify the exact Jakarta EE version and profile was implemented and passed in their certification results.
Q&A
o
How open-ended is this supposed to be? What if a Jakarta EE release breaks backwards compatibility? Who determines this without actually re-running
the TCK?
§
Implementations need to test it out before certifying against a higher of Jakarta EE
o
o
What is the TCK requirement for this?
§
Must pass Jakarta EE y+ TCKs and MicroProfile x TCKs
§
Some minor Jakarta EE releases could have backward incompatible changes by mistake. How do we account for that?
·
It means this Jakarta EE version can not work with the particular MP release. A new MP release have to be done to bring up the minimum version
of Jakarta EE.
§
If a MicroProfile component uses CDI 4.0, some aspects required must be CDI 4.0 or higher.
o
Cons:
§
Compromise portability as various implementations can support various Jakarta EE versions
o
Pros:
§
Allows implementations to align with Jakarta EE versions as they best see fit
§
Requires less frequent MicroProfile releases |