Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE

[Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 Reza!

Yes, and no. Yes, of course it's a past statement, but it does show that if these specs were planned to be in Java EE 8, they are a natural fit for Jakarta. It's not some wish that came around later.

Config, Health, Metrics, Fault Tolerance and JWT among others were all planned for Jakarta EE. 

The first 4 were not done since at the time the issues at Oracle started, and essentially MicroProfile was created as an alternative. JWT was not included since I simply ran out of time for Security 1.0 (both OAuth and JWT were planned for 1.0). Then the entire transition to Eclipse happened, and in the meanwhile MP "hijacked" JWT (hijacked with a big ;)).

 

I see what you meant. Personally, I don't think we need to move the specs to Jakarta EE just because they were in plan for Java EE 8. Since the specs like Health, Metrics, Fault Tolerance are not relied on by any Jakarta EE specs, I would leave them in MicroProfile. We are trying to pass the message to end users that Jakarta EE and MP are powerful together. Why do we want to move them? What message do we want to pass to developers? Having that said, we should only consider the specs that have overlaps or need to be used by Jakarta EE specs such as Config. The less changes the better.

Thanks

Emily

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:09 PM reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Just for completeness, I believe what is today REST client and Open API had also been discussed in the former JAX-RS expert group. That's no surprise as these features are so close to the REST domain.

I do agree that Emily's proposal does solve some thorny issues by moving things from one working group to another as things mature, namely keeping dependencies flowing in one (IMHO logical) direction, making it a tad easier to understand the guarantees/focus a given working group has and making Jakarta EE specific integrations a lot easier.

Reza Rahman

Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker

Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: 1/19/21 4:42 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:49 PM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I meant that they were originally planned to be done for Java EE 8, via the JCP. So there was nothing to transition ;)

It's a past statement. I don't think there is much value to discuss what might have been included in Java EE 8.

Yes, and no. Yes, of course it's a past statement, but it does show that if these specs were planned to be in Java EE 8, they are a natural fit for Jakarta. It's not some wish that came around later.

Config, Health, Metrics, Fault Tolerance and JWT among others were all planned for Jakarta EE. 

The first 4 were not done since at the time the issues at Oracle started, and essentially MicroProfile was created as an alternative. JWT was not included since I simply ran out of time for Security 1.0 (both OAuth and JWT were planned for 1.0). Then the entire transition to Eclipse happened, and in the meanwhile MP "hijacked" JWT (hijacked with a big ;)).

So it's no use to cry about spilled milk; what's done is done, but to reiterate, it's an explanation why Jakarta EE has a need/desire for those things.

 

I think moving MP Config to Jakarta while retaining the same namespace is a better option.

That would be my second choice, not so pretty, but I could live with it.

Kind regards,

Arjan

 

Thanks

Emily

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:21 PM arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:43 PM Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, many and APIs were not intended to ever transition to the JCP. 

I meant that they were originally planned to be done for Java EE 8, via the JCP. So there was nothing to transition ;)

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

 

_______________________________________________
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

--

Thanks
Emily

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

--

Thanks
Emily