| Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE |
Perhaps it is worthwhile for me to take a shot at summarizing the reasons I have seen cited here and elsewhere: * As far as I can reasonably observe, this seems to be the developer desire (to be honest though I would like to see further validation of this hypothesis via an Eclipse Foundation run survey. It would be cool if there was an ability in the survey for people to state the reasons for their respective namespace preferences). * It avoids needing to explain to developers forever more why some of these key bits of functionality was not standardized in Jakarta EE in the first place and why they need to conceptualize more than one namespace, especially for things that are so closely related. * It makes it clear what the stability, longevity and backwards compatibility expectations should be for a given API, especially while mixing and matching with functionality that should probably always remain in MicroProfile (more than anything else probably because they are rather specific to a domain). It also makes it clear right away which technology is maintained by which working group. * As Martijn has clearly stated from an LJC standpoint, there are a good number of folks that are actually expecting full convergence into Jakarta EE (personally while I respect and understand this viewpoint, I do not see it as worth pursuing. I think trying to pursue this path will cause more harm than good when the practical objective should be to find ways of both of these efforts/parties/perspectives to settle into respectable, non-contentious spaces). I hope this is helpful. I think it is self-evident the above viewpoints can be weighed and prioritized from many different perspectives and against other factors such as at least short term inconvenience to existing MicroProfile users. I do think though that whatever the ultimate consensus it is best to assume most viewpoints are pretty reasonable and held in good faith. 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: Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> Date: 1/19/21 1:38 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 And what is the justification for requiring a namespace change? On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:34 PM Rudy De Busscher <rdebusscher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|