Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cn4j-alliance] Finalizing the MP/EE messaging presentation
-1 on removing the 3 slides (iJUG)

I would like to improve them instead:

Aligning Jakarta EE and MicroProfile was one of the main reasons for iJUG joining both working groups, so I appreciate the forming of the CN4J Alliance!
There where different perspectives on this, i.e. regarding the time (past, now, future), organisational (i.e. release cadence) or technical (i.e. namespace, spec cut).
And while luckily some differences are removed now (or tending to it), there is still much left over - showing similarities and differences is very important to communicate!
That need to be done without finger-pointing of course - for most of it there are good reasons and the ones where only in the past, they need to be changed...

So having something like that to show what was done already and what might need to be done would be very helpful in my opinion.
Even then, if there is no reason having 2 Working Groups in the future ...

Best,
Jan

Am 26.05.21 um 17:39 schrieb Emily Jiang via cn4j-alliance:
I am with Steve on this. I also commented on one slide for removing the 2 comparison slides with more explanation.
+1 on removing the 2 slides!

Thanks
Emily

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:27 PM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In reality there are very few differences which would be of interest to the outside world over and above "experiment/innovate" versus "stable evolution" 
It is very difficult to get agreement on a list of features as saying one group has this or that feature implies the other doesn't have it.

 IMHO, the "why" there are two WGs is essentially historic and therefore of little interest other than to tech historians. You wouldn't start from here when starting over. 

I'm for removing the slides.

Steve

From: cn4j-alliance <cn4j-alliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 May 2021 3:57 PM
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cn4j-alliance] Finalizing the MP/EE messaging presentation
 
+1 to retain the 2 slides. 

Without then, there is no explanation as to why there are 2 working groups. 



On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 1:03 AM John Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’m not sure if we can come to a consensus on the MP/EE comparison slides. Scott and I have taken two shots at the slide(s). I have withdrawn the slides from the messaging deck in an effort to move forward.

If there is a desire to retain the slides in some form, feel free to comment on this thread.

Thanks.
_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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


Back to the top