| Re: [cn4j-alliance] Thoughts on the CN4J purpose |
|
I will add some specific comments on the presentation. Although I think it is better to outline thoughts on my overall goals. Almost a year ago I wrote a blog calling for absorbing the MicroProfile apis into the Jakarta EE working group rather than creating a new working group
MicroProfile and Jakarta EE Technical Alignment (payara.fish). Although the working group question is moot I think a number of the thoughts there for example “profiles
as brands” are somewhat similar to some of the thoughts in the presentation. Some of my goals are; We don’t create market confusion. We must avoid MicroProfile and Jakarta EE being perceived as competing.
It must be easy to combine MicroProfile and Jakarta EE apis into a single application.
We must be able to support the latest MicroProfile Platform and the latest Jakarta EE platform in the same product. Marketing of MicroProfile and Jakarta EE should not be against each other i.e. marketing of one should not put the other in a negative connotation e.g. lite implies heavy.
Just my first thoughts. Steve From: cn4j-alliance <cn4j-alliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Scott Stark Here are some initial thoughts on what CN4J needs to address and how that might happen. These are largely Red Hat's current views. The document is open to anyone with the link. Feel free to comment here or in
the document. This will be a lengthy discussion that we expect to involve members of both Jakarta and MicroProfile communities as well as their respective committees. |