Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Discussion on the future of Jakarta Config

[Jan Westerkamp <jan.westerkamp@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Tanja,

thanks for your input, but I remember the agreement about collaboration a little bit different:

When there are tasks, that will affect both WGs, they should be discussed in CN4J, as this is a neutral ground for collaboration between MicroProfile and Jakarta WGs.
Technical and organisational aspects can be discussed there and decisions can be made, but (important fact) these are not binding to the involved WGs. Instead, each WG need to vote internally in their responsible organisation according to their rules to make binding decisions.

But decisions need to be prepared in a way both sides can live with - that's why I started the discussion there as it was discussed in yesterdays Jakarta Platform Call and MicroProfile Community call to do it there.

So from my point of view, we are at the point to have that discussion, as there is a request to have something like MicroProfile Config as Jakarta Config available in Jakarta (Core Profile) now and people from MicroProfile need to be involved, including especially people, that are interested in their integration (like vendors supporting both in a single product etc.).
We need to solve technical issues up to Software Architecture related aspects and also organisational aspects like release management and governance.

Another agreement of collaboration was not building redundant specs too, and to be compliant to that, just creating something similar in Jakarta would violate that - this should be prevented! Instead the spec should moved in a way both sides to can live and benefit from make this feature available to Jakarta Component Specs too.

Jareds push forward is very welcomed, but now we need to wider the scope to bing everybody on board and finding the best and future prove solution for both WGs - and that goes beyond the scope of the Jakarta Config mailing list - that should be discussed in the CN4J mailing list.
Of course, this does not mean I wanted to prevent other discussions, I want wo make sure the topics are addressed to the right mailing list - and as you are listed them below, there are a lot of mailing list options where discussions about a config spec could and should happen. I.e. when there is an agreement where to do which task, detailed work will be done in the corresponding Component Spec mailing list, architecture and organisational aspects in probably both Umbrella Spec projects mailing list and final decisions on the WG level.

So, this task is a (pull) request (restarted) from the Jakarta side to move a spec from MicroProfile to Jakarta - why not having the discussion on the CN4J mailing list, as we discussed the topic on Umbrella Spec level the last month and delegating it there now?

I fully agree to inform all the relevant mailing lists about this and would be happy to get help with this - I tried to do it yesterday with the announcement on the Umbrella Spec level (MicroProfile WG and Jakarta Platform Dev), according to the meetings discussions.

A technical problem in having the discussion in more than one mailing list in parallel is the fact, that conversation breaks up in mailing lists, where a replier in not part of - so concentrating on a singe one and announcing it on multiple ones seems to me the way to overcome this restriction at best.

Best,
Jan

Am 06.02.25 um 10:42 schrieb Tanja Obradovic:

Hi Jan, All,

this is a very important discussion that is of interest to both Working Groups. Each Working Group needs to discuss internally and decide what their needs independently and freely, before a common discussion starts, at least that was agreed upon a few years ago.

In order to do that and to make sure we involve the community and all people that have a say in these technical decisions, I do not think cn4j-alliance is sufficient mailing list. 

Here is why:

CN4J mailing list does not contain the full technical community

• CNJ4 mailing list has (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/cn4j-alliance ) 82 subscribers and both communities need to recognize that not everyone is interested in being subscribed to this mailing l ist. Also it is not a mailing list necessarily focused on technical discussions.

• Technical mailing lists

• Jakarta Config mailing list (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/config-dev ) has 48 subscribers and is focused on technical config related topics, so this is the mailing list for th e discussion

• Microprofile DEV (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/microprofile-dev) has 114 subscribers

• Jakarta EE Platform mailing list Jakarta Config mailing list 306 (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/jakartaee-platform-dev ).

• Microprofile mailing lists

• There is also Microprofile WG (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/microprofile-wg) that has 91 subscribers

• Google group mailing list numbers are not available to me ? (note: many community members are not willing to use google groups)

As you can notice it will be far more effective to have and continue a discussion as Jared initiated in the this email thread,  involving Jakarta Config mailing list, but would suggest to consult MP leads on what MP mailing list needs to be  used. Jakarta EE Platform team should be consulted on when they would like to be looped into this conversation.

I hope you all find this helpful.

Best,

Tanja

On 2025-02-05 10:29 a.m., Jan Westerkamp via jakartaee-platform-dev wrote:

Hi,

as discussed yesterday in the Jakarta Platform and MicroProfile Community Call, I started the discussion on the future of Jakarta Config and MiroProfile Config in the following thread:

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cn4j-alliance/msg00219.html

Please join it there, if you are interested!

Thanks,
Jan

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev

--

Tanja Obradović

Sr. Manager, Java Programs | Eclipse Foundation