2018-02-28 10:31 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com>:
> Hi All, > > Good to see talk on moving TomEE into the MP scene. > > The MP landing page of interest is this one: > https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation > > As we can see, TomEE is a long way behind here. > > I feel that we need to act 'really fast' to get TomEE on that board as > soon as possible, even if it is 'just' a distribution with mp-config > enabled - That would give us two hits on that board with little effort, mp > 1.0 and config 1.2. > > I don't think we should be waiting to get as much in as possible before > releasing something, it should be our priority to release something now. > That could easily be TomEE 7, and 8 soon after. In fact, the longer we > wait, the less significant TomEE will become to MP. > > I don't think it would be too hard to maintain the 7 and 8 versions by > adding mp-impls as soon as we have them available. > > As you know, all I wanted to do recently was to open up mp modules space > for this work to begin on getting TomEE up to spec - Again, not to create > implementations or libraries. I still believe this is a logical approach, > to have a module per spec in TomEE. These modules should be focusing on > getting the current impls of choice (Wherever they come from!) integrated > into TomEE, and passing the corresponding TCKs provided by MP. I'd > personally like to see TomEE MP modules high up in the project hierarchy > and not buried, but I will leave that up to you guys for obvious reasons. > I'd just ask that any one of you guys to get the ball rolling on this so > that we can maybe divide the work? > A small note on the "wherever they come from": one of the strength of tomee and differentiation point was to be 100% (almost ;)) ASF. If our MP is eclipse then I'm not sure TomEE would be very interesting from the user point of view? Also note the MP specs have several rules we'll want o break through toggles since they make the spec unusable so we will probably need to own the spec anyway as we already started. > > Andy. > > > > On 27/02/18 16:02, Roberto Cortez wrote: > >> Thanks Romain, >> I'll have a look into JL work. >> Cheers,Roberto On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:53:50 PM GMT, Romain >> Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Roberto, >> >> JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo >> dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here. >> Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or assemble >> modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all >> require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to >> apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs wp >> and fp will not). >> >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8- >> high-performance> >> >> 2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid>: >> >> Hi, >>> Thank you for the discussion. >>> I do believe that we should provide a MP 1.3 implementation under TomEE >>> 7. >>> As we know, moving from major versions is sometimes slow in a lot of >>> organizations, even if the upgrade only requires a zip file. >>> So, I'll look into integrating some of the work under TomEE 7 and then 8. >>> Cheers,Roberto On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 9:02:44 AM GMT, Romain >>> Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com. >>> invalid>: >>> >>> Even if we use IRC or similar tools, we need to get all of these >>>> discussion to our mailing lists. ASF main idea is to use the mailing >>>> >>> lists >>> >>>> for these discussions. I think such decisions taken from other places >>>> really kills the projects and community >>>> >>>> You read it wrong, the decisions have been done on the list the asf way. >>> The community and user activity doesn't always go through the list since >>> it >>> requires steps to enter whereas twitter and irc are no step - guess it is >>> why we miss activities on the list. >>> >>> >>> CheersGurkan >>>> >>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:38:02 AM GMT+3, Romain >>>> Manni-Bucau >>>> >>> < >>> >>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com. >>>> invalid>: >>>> >>>> After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> projects anyway. When you have lots of similar projects, it is not >>>>> easy >>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>> create and maintain the healthy community , only couple of active >>>>> developers works on these projects without general community consensus >>>>> >>>> . >>> >>>> I >>>> >>>>> prefer to have one project which covers all of these similar >>>>> >>>> technologies. >>>> Except it doesn't work in practise I think - we tried and failed - cause >>>> communities are actually different. Sadly it goes through IRC/twitter a >>>> >>> lot >>> >>>> and seems mails are no more mainstream but core dev are the same, users >>>> >>> are >>> >>>> not. >>>> If we see a cost we can't pay we'll probably merge them but it is >>>> clearly >>>> not the case today so no real point merging them and loosing users. >>>> >>>> >>>> CheersGurkan >>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:10:57 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg >>>>> <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that) >>>>> Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional >>>>> technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a >>>>> MicroProfile server. >>>>> BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum >>>>> >>>> what >>> >>>> the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave >>>>> >>>> or >>> >>>> Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight >>>>> >>>> than >>>> >>>>> 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling: >>>>> * if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also >>>>> need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA, >>>>> >>>> JAX-WS, >>>> >>>>> EJB, etc -> use TomEE >>>>> After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those >>>>> >>>> projects >>>> >>>>> anyway. >>>>> LieGrue,strub >>>>> On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Gurkan, >>>>> >>>>> All has clarified after your mail: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec >>>>> 2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by >>>>> itself!), name is not even on the website. >>>>> 3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects >>>>> 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that) >>>>> >>>>> So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once >>>>> >>>> you >>> >>>> checked out the projects IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com. >>>>> >>>> invalid> >>>> >>>>> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under >>>>> >>>> TomEE >>> >>>> (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in >>>>> Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same >>>>> point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or >>>>> >>>> modules) >>> >>>> in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules >>>>> >>>> must >>> >>>> belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc >>>>> e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E >>>>> >>>>> CheersGurkan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain >>>>> >>>> Manni-Bucau >>> >>>> < >>>> >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <bruno...@gmail.com> a >>>>> >>>> écrit : >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>>> Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config >>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard >>>>> >>>>> Can we assume that from now on? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined >>>>> >>>> for >>>> >>>>> safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - >>>>> >>>> tomcat >>> >>>> classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a >>>>> tomee-mp. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Bruno Baptista >>>>> http://twitter.com/brunobat_ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent >>>>>> >>>>> Apache >>>> >>>>> MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions. >>>>>> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/ >>>>>> >>>>> geronimo-config >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>>> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough. >>>>>> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github >>>>>> .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE >>>>>> >>>>> libs >>>> >>>>> and also required to set TomEE configuration >>>>>> >>>>> tomee.webapp.classloader. >>> >>>> enrichment.prefixes >>>>> >>>>>> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are >>>>>> >>>>> part >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just >>>>>> >>>>> fine. >>>>> >>>>>> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the >>>>>> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner. >>>>>> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. >>>>>> >>>>> The >>> >>>> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. >>>>>> >>>>> If >>> >>>> we >>>> >>>>> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with >>>>>> >>>>> JAX-RS >>> >>>> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX >>>>>> >>>>> 3.2.x >>>> >>>>> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a >>>>>> >>>>> workaround, >>> >>>> I've >>>>> >>>>>> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but >>>>>> >>>>> there >>>> >>>>> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, >>>>>> >>>>> but >>>> >>>>> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to >>>>>> >>>>> support >>>> >>>>> MP 1.3. >>>>>> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP >>>>>> >>>>> specs. >>> >>>> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE >>>>>> >>>>> flavour >>>>> >>>>>> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary. >>>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>>> Cheers,Roberto >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > -- > Andy Gumbrecht > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > http://www.tomitribe.com > https://www.tomitribe.io > > > Ubique > >
