My comments are inline.
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:07:28 PM UTC+1 Dmitry Kornilov wrote:
I
listened a recording of the latest MicroProfile technical meeting where
Jakarta Config was discussed. I don't agree in a way how Jakarta Config
was presented there, it doesn't reflect the real situation. I even more
disappointed that it was presented by Emily, who is one of the leaders.
As
one of the leads for MicroProfile Technical calls, I ran last week's
calls. Because MP Config and Jakarta Config discussion was added to the
agenda, I had to lead the discussion. In my view, it is wrong to ignore
the issue. It is important to listen to what people think regarding this
issue. We should not suppress any questions.
The
first and fundamental mistake is to think that Jakarta Config tries to
build a new spec from scratch. It's not our goal. We want to get maximum
from MP Config but before doing it we want to understand what we want
to build.
The main concern about MP Config is that it was not
build in truly vendor-neutral way. Technically it's not a specification
at all because it was not created under any specification process. It's
an open source API created by a few enthusiasts mostly from RedHat and
IBM. Although, I'm not saying that it's a bad API, but Jakarta cannot
take it as it is without a deep review, without making sure that it fits
all Jakarta EE requirements and without a consensus between all
participating parties. This is what Jakarta Config team is currently
working on. We are trying to set some requirements and after that we'll
decide how MP Config should be changed to address them. This new spec
must become the only config spec suiting both Jakarta EE and
MicroProfile. I agree that there is no need to have 2 configs.
MicroProfile
welcomes all participants. I had been trying to contact people to get
involved. It will be great more and more get involved. I am pleased to
know we are on the same line of not having 2 configs. I think some
fundamental guidelines should be laid out when thinking about solutions.
Talking
about changes. We haven't finished our analysis and it's too early to
provide a summary. So far, MP Config fits well into our requirements,
but there are a few issues which I consider minor.
MicroProfile
team pushing hard in all directions to force Jakarta Config to take MP
Config as it is. We already had a several discussions about it. We will
discuss it again on CN4J meeting. I personally believe that it's not
right open source way of doing things. Please stop doing it! I
personally invited all MP Config committers to Jakarta Config team. So
let's work together to build a spec which all parties will be happy
with.
I think it is important to take some input or
guidance from the cummunity on what Jakarta Config should focus and the
relationship with MP Config. The whole discussion was to make people
ware of the technical discussion to happen in CN4J so that the two
communities won't have surprises far down the road.
Thanks
Emily