Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cn4j-alliance] Finalizing the MP/EE messaging presentation
In reality there are very few differences which would be of interest to the outside world over and above "experiment/innovate" versus "stable evolution" 
It is very difficult to get agreement on a list of features as saying one group has this or that feature implies the other doesn't have it.

 IMHO, the "why" there are two WGs is essentially historic and therefore of little interest other than to tech historians. You wouldn't start from here when starting over. 

I'm for removing the slides.

Steve

From: cn4j-alliance <cn4j-alliance-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 May 2021 3:57 PM
To: Discussions on formation of a CN4J Alliance with the MicroProfile Working Group <cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cn4j-alliance] Finalizing the MP/EE messaging presentation
 
+1 to retain the 2 slides. 

Without then, there is no explanation as to why there are 2 working groups. 



On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 1:03 AM John Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’m not sure if we can come to a consensus on the MP/EE comparison slides. Scott and I have taken two shots at the slide(s). I have withdrawn the slides from the messaging deck in an effort to move forward.

If there is a desire to retain the slides in some form, feel free to comment on this thread.

Thanks.
_______________________________________________
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

Back to the top