Hello, I added my comments on the Google Doc.
Two things: - Slide 4:
- Too many profiles. This will cause confusion. Now you need criteria to figure out which one to use and then worry about how to move between profiles. I like " à la carte” or everything but that’s my personal opinion.
- Slide 6:
- Why would winning new developers happen specifically with MicroProfile and LiteProfile? I can see some vendors wanting to push one or the other due to business reasons but I don’t think this should be a goal for CN4J.
- I don’t agree with trying NOT to evolve the Jakarta EE specs “too much”. Why don’t wouldn’t we want to evolve the specs? It it isn’t evolving then people will think it is dead.
-Ryan Cuprak
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.
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
|
