[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Jakarta Batch + CDI integration POLL - early results discussion
|
To be honest, this is another case of end user input not really
being predictable. That said, it makes total sense. People like
clarity over ambiguity even if it means more opinionated defaults.
I would wait a bit before coming to too many conclusions just yet.
In my experience, things don't settle out into patterns until
about a few hundred votes.
As I have said in the past, I think there are bigger issues to
work on and it does not make sense to hold things up for this. I
think it's fine to formalize status quo as an intermediate step as
long as we continue to take user input seriously.
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.
On 11/22/21 10:04 AM, Scott Kurz wrote:
Though the Jakarta EE Twitter
account only shared the poll late Friday, let me share an
early analysis of the votes.
Since Option 3 has the most
votes (out of only 40), let's discuss how to react to this.
Arguably we should wait and
close the vote first. But since we're out of time and it's a
holiday week in the U.S. (I'm out 11/24-11/28), I'd like to
keep at least looking ahea.
(I don't think discussing
before the vote ends biases things any....presumably anyone
reading this email would've already voted).
So out of 40 votes so far we
have:
Option 1: 25 %
Option 2: 20 %
Option 3: 55 %
(The numbers before I added the
guidance were 24 votes total, (38%, 21%, 42%).... so not
radically different, same relative ranking).
-------------------------------------
I propose that we:
* go ahead with Option for
Batch 2.1, EE 10, formalizing the status quo
* consider this useful input to
the platform for future releases, post-EE 10 , e.g. for specs
like Batch (obviously) & REST
Reasons:
1. Assuming we were to offer
Option 3 at some point in the future, I don't see that
standardizing on the status quo now would make backwards
compatibility any harder, (since as the status quo, we have to
consider back compatibility with option 2 anyway). But we'd
have more time to discuss how to mitigate compatibility issues
as well as decide if we truly want to go in this direction.
2. We are realistically out of
time to do Option 3 at this point unless we want to argue to
push back all of EE 10 (or pull Batch out).
3. Finally, I do think
specifying Option 2 in EE 10 is a useful step forwards
compared to the option of simply doing nothing. We'd be
clarifying the very confusing DI but not necessarily CDI
situation from Batch 1.0, explaining to a new impl what Batch
+ CDI integration should look like, and adding some TCK tests
to verify this.
So we don't have to consider
this a final decision.. but wanted to get these thoughts out
there.
Thanks for helping with this
decision,
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Kurz
WebSphere / Open Liberty Batch and Developer Experience
skurz@xxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev