> How would this work for products that support both EE and MP? Especially when we know that this is the majority of the products out there?
>
> Having config files picked up by two different MP versions that both live in the same runtime, potentially even the same implementation (so the same implementation packages), I'm not really looking forward to code and maintain such a setup
I'm not sure I understand this point. Perhaps because I am most familiar with a product runtime that already handles multiple versions of Java EE / Jakarta EE / MicroProfile all with the same installation.
No matter if a namespace change of MP is done for Jakarta or not I think the solution MUST have a story that preserves backwards compatibility for the version being pulled into a Jakarta EE specification such that new releases can be done in a backwards compatible way. I don't see how changing the namespace to jakarta is a prerequisite to compatibility. I also don't see how changing to jakarta addresses your concern about supporting both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile with the same implementation. It would seem a namespace change would only make that more difficult.
If it is decided that the subset of MP APIs really need to be evolved under the Jakarta WG then I still don't see any requirement that they must have a namespace change to jakarta. I think it would be a much more smooth transition if the namespace is preserved and I also believe it would make things more likely to succeed with the developers.
Tom
----- Original message -----
From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: "cn4j-alliance" <cn4j-alliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE
Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2021 8:47 AM
Hi,
1) Keep the namespace as-is in MP and keep the API evolving in MP in backward compatible way moving forward. Jakarta can then pick up new versions as it see fit.
How would this work for products that support both EE and MP? Especially when we know that this is the majority of the products out there?
Having config files picked up by two different MP versions that both live in the same runtime, potentially even the same implementation (so the same implementation packages), I'm not really looking forward to code and maintain such a setup.
Kind regards,
Arjan
