Re: [microprofile-wg] [Discussion] Context Propagation 1.3 Specification

["Nathan Rauh" <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry that I didn't record more detail about the decision to use a 
point release versus a major release.  This is something that I was unsure 
of and had inquired about around the July/August timeframe from this past 
summer, but all I have in my notes (from August 12) as the resolution is: 
"We have been instructed to use a point release (1.3) because Jakarta EE 
9.1 only impacts our TCK and documentation."  But I don't recall who gave 
us that decision and whether it was on a MicroProfile call or whether the 
decision was relayed back to me second-hand.  Regardless, it seems that it 
must not have been as well socialized as it should have been given that it 
is surprising people now.




From:   "David Blevins" <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:     "Microprofile WG discussions" <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   11/16/2021 03:15 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [microprofile-wg] [Discussion] Context 
Propagation 1.3 Specification Release Review - VOTE by November 26th - 
(two weeks)
Sent by:        "microprofile-wg" <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>



On Nov 16, 2021, at 12:38 PM, Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 1) Was 
there an approved plan review for Context Propagation 1.3? (I'm missing my 
record of that and apologize if I just lost this.) Good callout. I think 
we've missed ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
On Nov 16, 2021, at 12:38 PM, Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1) Was there an approved plan review for Context Propagation 1.3? (I'm 
missing my record of that and apologize if I just lost this.)
Good callout.  I think we've missed Plan Reviews in general:

 - https://github.com/microprofile/microprofile-wg/labels/Plan%20Review

We definitely need to do those from now on.
2) All the other specifications are making major releases due to the 
incompatible changes required by Jakarta 9.1. While the Context 
Propagation API may not have a direct dependency on Jakarta EE APIs, it 
seems the TCKs may. Is it confirmed this is a minor-release compatible 
update? Should a user running on Jakarta EE 8, expect to be able to 
upgrade their implementation to Context Propagation 1.3 successfully 
without also upgrading their Jakarta EE dependency? Should a vendor 
anticipate supporting both EE 8 and 9 with this release?
More good questions.  I see that we did update the namespaces in the TCK.

I'd be hesitant to establish a rule where major changes in the TCK need to 
result in a major version change.  That said, we're not talking strictly 
about changes in the TCK (say moving from Junit to TestNG) that do not 
have an impact on the server itself.  The change in the TCK does require a 
change in the server and that creates some ambiguity in my mind.

Here are some potential resolutions that seem to make sense to me:

 - Keep the minor version change and:
   - be ok to accept CCRs from Jakarta EE  8 based impls that have used 
bytecode tools to modify the CP 1.3 TCK itself back to the 'javax' 
namespace OR
   - issue our own javax version of the CP 1.3 TCK, which Jakarta EE  8 
based impls can chose as an alternate to the jakarta namespace CP 1.3 TCK
 - Update the major version

Any other options people see?


-David
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe 
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg