[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [microprofile-wg] [DISCUSS] MicroProfile 7.0 Ballot verbiage straw poll
|
> On May 19, 2023, at 4:07 PM, David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 2023, at 3:28 PM, reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> It’s definitely correct that we don’t agree on the problem.
>
> Is it possible we can talk about the problem statement in the document?
>
> The issue that’s outlined is that if we continue to do things the way we’ve been, an implementation that wants to be present at the day have the Jakarta EE 11 vote will:
>
> - not be able to obtain MicroProfile 7 certification as it will require 10 and will not allow 11
> - not know what the MicroProfile 8 requirements will be in enough time to know what to implement
> - An MP 7.1 would not be possible as a change from EE 10 to 11 is a breaking change which we don’t allow in minor versions
>
> Scenarios where implementations that come out after all releases are out don’t have the issue, so we don’t need to mention them.
So everyone is on the same page, the EFSP does not allow a specification to be released without at least one certified implementation.
It may be an edge case, but it is unavoidable and our status quo puts at least one implementation in a bad spot.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
