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

[Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>]

And this is a mischaracterisation of what is being proposed as one way of expanding the Jakarta platform. If an MP spec has some proven traction such that Jakarta views it as one worthy of adoption, then there is the question of who is supporting the incorporation into the platform and how. One proposal that seeks to minimize both the cost of the integration and impact of current adopters of the spec is to change the behavior of the MP spec project to adopt the more restrictive compatibility requirements.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:46 AM arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:21 AM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why do we want to move them? What message do we want to pass to developers? 

Eventually, that it is a single platform, and that developers don't have to think whether something is in EE or MP.

Maybe we can consider it the other way around: what is the advantage of a platform being divided for a developer?

Say I wanted to start with Spring as a developer. Would it be an advantage if it was just Spring, or would it be better if there was a Spring and (say) Radical Solutions, which both gave me the impression to overlap somewhat and compete somewhat, but also still worked together. What would a developer prefer? Just Spring? Or Spring + Radical Solutions?

Just some food for thought ;)

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