My understanding is that there are only a few MP APIs considered for inclusion in Jakarta APIs. Are there no MP APIs that would be considered for maintaining in a backward compatible way moving forward within the MP working group? Does such a demand for backward compatibility make it such that the API cannot be evolved within the MP working group?
I'm still trying to understand what the two working groups are open to for a solution to using MP APIs in Jakarta specifications.
Tom
----- Original message -----
From: Scott Stark <starksm64@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 1:43 PM
Yes, many and APIs were not intended to ever transition to the JCP. Even with the transition of JCP to Jakarta, there remain process, cost and lifecycle issues that would cause Red Hat to target MP over Jakarta.
Hi,
I'll disagree with this premise
You mean that originally most of the APIs that are now in MP were not planned for EE, or did you mean something else?
Kind regards,
Arjan
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
