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

[Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, that is correct. The phrase in the charter is '... may break backwards compatibility'. The proving ground statement also gets to the issue of not wanting to capriciously rename APIs that are in customer applications. When Jakarta wants to adopt an MP originated API, the first question has to be, who is going to support it, the second, how. At that point it can be decided whether that spec project will be willing to introduce compatibility guarantees or whether it is willing to duplicate effort to keep the innovation aspect at a higher turnover than Jakarta is willing to accept.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 3:47 AM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Isn’t the MPWG charter explicit that backwards compatibility is not a goal of MP? I’d assumed that it was drafted that way on purpose along with “Experiment and Innovate” and “provides an industry proving ground to incubate and experiment”?

 

It was from these charter principles and the strong desire from many to maintain WG independence that I suggested graduation to Jakarta EE in the first place.

 

Steve

 

From: cn4j-alliance <cn4j-alliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Scott Stark
Sent: 19 January 2021 20:59
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE

 

Correct, and that is what I am trying to get an understanding of as well. I believe config is a strong candidate for a spec that has different handling relative to the default behavior in MP. I believe Red Hat would vote for a change in handling on the MP side in order to use config on the Jakarta side. On the Jakarta side Red Hat would vote to not have to duplicate the effort that has already been put in.

 

The question is whether that could be a consensus view across the two WGs.

 

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:09 PM Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My understanding is that there are only a few MP APIs considered for inclusion in Jakarta APIs.  Are there no MP APIs that would be considered for maintaining in a backward compatible way moving forward within the MP working group? Does such a demand for backward compatibility make it such that the API cannot be evolved within the MP working group?

 

I'm still trying to understand what the two working groups are open to for a solution to using MP APIs in Jakarta specifications.

Tom
 

 

 

----- Original message -----
From: Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>
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 1:43 PM
 

Yes, many and APIs were not intended to ever transition to the JCP. Even with the transition of JCP to Jakarta, there remain process, cost and lifecycle issues that would cause Red Hat to target MP over Jakarta.

 

 

_______________________________________________
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