Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE

[Mark Little <markclittle@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Moving specs from MP to Jakarta doesn’t make sense. It also sends the wrong signal that the only way in which (stable?) MP specs should be consumed is through a Jakarta EE implementation. We have several non-Jakarta EE implementations today in the MP ecosystem and I see that as a strength.

Mark.

On 19 Jan 2021, at 21:32, Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I agree with everything you state except need to move the MP config itself to Jakarta.  So far I don't understand why we have to move working groups to do this.  I read that there may be some circularity issue that would pose an issue for building the specifications?  Would not moving MP config to Jakarta also introduce a circularity issue for future MP releases that now need to consume the latest from Jakarta?

Tom
 

 

 

----- Original message -----
From: Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: "cn4j-alliance" <cn4j-alliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE
Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2021 2:49 PM
 

I meant that they were originally planned to be done for Java EE 8, via the JCP. So there was nothing to transition ;)

 

It's a past statement. I don't think there is much value to discuss what might have been included in Java EE 8.

 

I disagree with forking and changing namespaces. It is unnecessary and causes unnecessary migration.

 

I also disagree with two configs existing in both Jakarta and MicroProfile. It is a recipe for confusion and disaster.

 

I think moving MP Config to Jakarta while retaining the same namespace is a better option.

 

Thanks

Emily

 

 

 

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:21 PM arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi

 

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:43 PM Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, many and APIs were not intended to ever transition to the JCP. 

 

I meant that they were originally planned to be done for Java EE 8, via the JCP. So there was nothing to transition ;)

 

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

 

 

_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance

--

Thanks
Emily
 

_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance

 

_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance