Comments are still pending? Didn't see any? +1 for don't maintain it in two different places + David's idea.
Gruß Richard Am Dienstag, dem 19.04.2022 um 14:33 -0700 schrieb David Blevins: > Those pages looking great! Left some specific comments in the PR. > > > On Apr 17, 2022, at 12:10 PM, Swell <souheil.sul...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Thank you all for your feedbacks, comparison pages sent for review: > > + https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/854 > > + https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/855 > > Thanks for tracking down all that version information! That's always > a lot of tedious digging. > > > you might want those two "per-version" comparison pages to be > > without the > > tables for "flavors" and "implementations" since these tables also > > are in > > the "main" comparison page in the website PR: > > I agree we definitely don't want it in two places. In my experience > documentation doesn't get maintained well, so anything duplicated > usually ends up drifting apart and causing confusion. > > My vote would be to kill the implementation information from the main > comparison and leave that information only in the comparison pages > dedicated to their specific version. > > > -David > > > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 21:04, David Blevins < > > david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Sounds awesome, everyone. > > > > > > Total side note. I cannot express how much I love seeing this > > > much > > > engagement and collaboration. Often times PRs don't get any > > > feedback at > > > all and sit for months. It's really fantastic to see activity > > > like this. > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2022, at 11:29 AM, Swell <souheil.sul...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This reflects my first attempts, i still have them "per- > > > > version" > > > > uncommited, already linking to specs by precise version > > > > > > > > so it wont be too hard for me to turn around, and give you > > > > these > > > versions. > > > > the drawback is these pages may have to be maintained on > > > > dependencies > > > > updates and releases, but that may be ok and clearer for users > > > > visiting > > > the > > > > website. > > > > > > > > i'll send the per version to "tomee" repo first then the page > > > > for website > > > > repo > > > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 20:09, Zowalla, Richard < > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Makes sense, imho. Thanks for the thoughts, David. > > > > > That would simplify it for the reader. > > > > > > > > > > If we have it per version and link the per version documents > > > > > from the > > > > > overall comparision, we are proabably in a good shape. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 12.04.2022 um 10:58 -0700 schrieb David > > > > > Blevins: > > > > > > Hey All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I see there's a big thread on PR#37. > > > > > > > > > > > > - https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/pull/37 > > > > > > > > > > > > My gut reaction is that we might be trying to achieve the > > > > > > impossible > > > > > > by trying to fit every TomEE version and every Java > > > > > > EE/Jakarta EE > > > > > > version into one massive matrix or page. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do people think about potentially pausing that, taking > > > > > > a step > > > > > > back and seeing if there's a simpler approach. Often when > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > working on code and I notice it's getting just too big and > > > > > > hard to > > > > > > fit in my head or on the page in a way that makes sense, I > > > > > > change my > > > > > > approach. Instead of trying to solve the whole problem at > > > > > > once, I > > > > > > just take a slice of it that I know I'll need and work on > > > > > > it till > > > > > > it's clean. Then I move on and take another small slice > > > > > > and > > > > > > repeat. As I keep going I often find there is no more big > > > > > > mess, not > > > > > > because I found a better way to do it, but because I never > > > > > > needed it. > > > > > > > > > > > > My advice would be to give this a try. Pause the big PR#37 > > > > > > and shift > > > > > > gears. Instead try nailing just a basic comparison page > > > > > > for TomEE 9 > > > > > > that is like the one that's there, but adds the spec > > > > > > versions, links > > > > > > to the spec documents and the java information. > > > > > > > > > > > > I.e. we copy this page > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/blob/master/src/main/jbake/content/comparison.adoc > > > > > > To here: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/commits/master/docs/comparison.adoc > > > > > > > > > > > > Then we start with adding the spec versions and the spec > > > > > > links and > > > > > > get that merged. Afterwards we try adding the java > > > > > > information, and > > > > > > get that merged. Once we have a page we all like, we move > > > > > > on and do > > > > > > the same for TomEE 8.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/tomee-8.x/docs/comparison.adoc > > > > > > > > > > > > If we have the energy, let's do 7.1 and 7.0 since we're > > > > > > still > > > > > > releasing those once in a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > Each page will be of course only mentioning the > > > > > > specifications they > > > > > > implement. We can even use the exact spec names as they > > > > > > existed, so > > > > > > for example, all the TomEE 7.0 stuff would say "Java EE" > > > > > > not "Jakarta > > > > > > EE" and use "Enterprise JavaBeans" not "Jakarta > > > > > > EnterpriseBeans", > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Once we get individual pages for each TomEE version, we > > > > > > will likely > > > > > > have a different perspective on what we need for the main > > > > > > comparison > > > > > > page. Possibly we'll need very little as the individual > > > > > > pages will > > > > > > be doing most the hard work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2022, at 5:42 AM, Swell < > > > > > > > souheil.sul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Richard, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two pages can be pre-reviewed : > > > > > > > • compare-jakarta-versions.html > > > > > > > • comparison.html > > > > > > > i believe we can choose only one of the two for release. > > > > > > > which one > > > > > > > do you find more readable ? > > > > > > > (they differ in the detailed list of jakarta specs.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'll try to update my page later to better reflect JRE > > > > > > > ranges and > > > > > > > your warnings on JRE/ASM. > > > > > > > i have reflected JL work regarding MicroProfile > > > > > > > dependencies in my > > > > > > > draft PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also we could update TomEE 8.x to MicroProfile 4.1, > > > > > > > (SmallRye?) but is it worth ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 11:49, Zowalla, Richard < > > > > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Swell, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my TomEE 8.x is working on both JDK 11 and 17 with a > > > > > > > > small app. > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > features can be broken with wrong JDK/ASM version ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) If you are running with an unsupported version of ASM > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > server > > > > > > > might not startup or the deployment of applications will > > > > > > > simply not > > > > > > > work. Most of often this will result in an exception > > > > > > > (rather early) > > > > > > > telling you, that ASM does not support this specific > > > > > > > version of > > > > > > > Java. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) Our scripts are rather defensively written, but you > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > encounter > > > > > > > issues with unsupported JVM flags (between major JDK > > > > > > > versions) or > > > > > > > certain other mechanisms do not work (i.e. usages of > > > > > > > Unsafe, > > > > > > > Illegal > > > > > > > Reflective Access, etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most often this happens with "too new" JDKs (i.e. JDK 18- > > > > > > > GA) as we > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > some time to adjust / test or wait for transient libs to > > > > > > > be updated > > > > > > > (matter of resources). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TomEE works on both JDK and JRE, but can use more > > > > > > > > memory/cache in > > > > > > > JDK. is this right ? Is JDK to be preferred ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are running TomEE with JRE (not JDK) in production > > > > > > > and/or in > > > > > > > container environments (due to size). AFAIK our TomEE > > > > > > > docker images > > > > > > > also rely on JRE (rather than JDK). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TomEE implements MicroProfile 2.0 on branches 7.x, > > > > > > > > 8.x, 9.x ? > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > other MP versions ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we only support MP 2.x at the moment (in 7.x, 8.x > > > > > > > and 9.x). > > > > > > > JL is > > > > > > > currently working on upgrading MP on 9.x with the > > > > > > > smallray impl to > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > it work with the Jakarata namespace change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope it helps > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, dem 02.04.2022 um 16:09 +0200 schrieb Swell: > > > > > > > > Thanks ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i've put some work for the website comparison pages on > > > > > > > > a draft > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/pull/37 > > > > > > > > though I lack some info : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TomEE works on both JDK and JRE, but can use more > > > > > > > > memory/cache > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > JDK. is this right ? Is JDK to be preferred ? > > > > > > > > * my TomEE 8.x is working on both JDK 11 and 17 with a > > > > > > > > small app. > > > > > > > > What features can be broken with wrong JDK/ASM version > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > * TomEE implements MicroProfile 2.0 on branches 7.x, > > > > > > > > 8.x, 9.x ? > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > other MP versions ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the pages i made are not perfect for maintenance, but i > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > ideas to > > > > > > > > improve them, > > > > > > > > for example : maybe not include the "spec versions" > > > > > > > > columns on my > > > > > > > > "per-tomee-major" pages. that would help avoid mistakes > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > realising a new major like 10, 11... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe drop the per-major idea and keep only the main > > > > > > > > comparison > > > > > > > > page > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > maybe keep the main comparison page but add a new one > > > > > > > > to display > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > complete mapping between TomEE versions and Specs > > > > > > > > versions ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'am not ready to automate their generation, i did not > > > > > > > > see if the > > > > > > > > Jakarta Spec Process does release specs numbers in a > > > > > > > > format like > > > > > > > > JSON, > > > > > > > > that would be easier to parse than HTML > > > > > > > > https://projects.eclipse.org/releases/jakarta-10 > > > > > > > > the TomEE visitors could rely on these eclipse pages to > > > > > > > > identify > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > Jakarta version they need before choosing a TomEE > > > > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the text i wrote is to be changed too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Open to your suggestions :-) > > > > > > > > Swell > > > > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
