[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cn4j-alliance] Thoughts on the CN4J purpose
|
Hello -
Scott Stark's original note on "Thoughts on CN4J purpose" has led
to a detailed technical discussion on APIs which is great.
However, we have not yet brought both Working Groups together to
discuss the basic topic of "CN4J purpose", basic goals, how we
will organize ourselves, how we will make decisions on the scope
of what CN4J can and cannot influence. These things need to be
addressed before CN4J can move onto technical topics.
There was some discussion on this in the Jakarta EE Steering
Committee, which contains many but not all members of both Working
Groups, and it was agreed the good next step would be to bring
both Steering Committees together in a meeting to have an
introductory discussion. The proposed time is Feb 2 at 12:30 PM
EST.
I'll work with Eclipse to send out an invite and include a
proposed agenda.
Thanks
Will
On 1/18/21 10:22 AM, Steve Millidge
(Payara) wrote:
I’m
not strongly against a core profile as I think the “core” of
Jakarta EE does need a whole lot more architectural
consistency. Although it may need more in it than the
Jakarta specifications currently referenced in MicroProfile.
Profiles are
not just for developers though. Expanding the number of EE
implementations by lowering the bar with a smaller base
profile and associated TCK is something we would like to
see. Having a profile in EE that revs at a faster pace
then the current Web profile and platform are another
reason we would like to see a core profile introduced.
I
don’t think additional Jakarta EE profiles adds a
lot for developers. Although it makes it easier for
a product creator to gain Jakarta EE compatibility
on a subset of specifications. Just looking at our
download stats Full profile is download 20x more
than Web Profile. Also we get more demands to add
additional apis to Payara Micro which is Web
Profile+ than anything else.
Given
we have MicroProfile I don’t see the need to have an
equivalent profile in Jakarta EE. Can’t MicroProfile
just create a platform TCK that takes a subset of
the Jakarta EE TCK for the specs that form that
profile.
I'm
not sure if too "many" profiles are going to be
confusing. It's how we make them available. But
having vendors implement a profile and add a few
other specifications, effectively creating their
own vendor-specific profiles might not be the
desired way to go either.
On
agreeing whether or not to evolve Jakarta EE
specifications "too much": I don't think we have
any choice but to evolve them in order to keep
them valuable for developers. If they aren't, we
run the risk that vendors are going to create
their own versions of these specifications
because their end-users aren't going to use the
original specifications, effectively rendering
them obsolete. If that happens, the whole reason
that we have standards in specification falls
apart and loses its value.
_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!JKIW_JcmwrIWsC6JQTbu2Ur6-qjQZ9ds2Qa__0cIKbhRtcg8Qy2BzYO-Qzo0U28Y$
