i also agree about ease of maintenance.
i started working on comparison page v7.1, here are some thoughts :
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/866
i have several questions/issues:
- i lack some JSR specs number, i need to dig them, working on it, help
appreciated
- this comparison page would be a quasi duplicate between 7.0 and 7.1,
it is ok for now.
- there are 2 TomEE minors (v7.0,v7.1) for 1 Java EE (v7) its ok if
it stays like that.
it may be a pain later if there is again 2 TomEE for 1 Jakarta (say
TomEE v10.0 and TomEE v10.1 for same Jakarta 10.0).
could this happen again ?
- i would appreciate feedbacks on this suggested comparison page
- is red cross a bad idea to tell EE7 does not include JSON-B ?
do i better remove the lines with red crosses (specs not part of EE7)
?
instead of making a comparison page for every TomEE minors (7.0, 7.1, 8, 9),
could i make a comparison page for every Java/Jakarta minors (7, 8, 9.1,
10.0) ?
(and put them on the main website instead)
i'm not sure whats the best option.
here is what i'am working on :
- tomee.apache.org/
- comparison.html
- tomee-7.1/docs/comparison.html (more risk ok duplicate)
- tomee-8.0/docs/comparison.html
- tomee-9.0/docs/comparison.html
here is an alternative :
- tomee.apache.org/
- comparison.html
- comparison-jakartaee-7.html (no risk ok duplicate)
- comparison-jakartaee-8.html
- comparison-jakartaee-9.html
- comparison-jakartaee-10.html
We all have a lot of work this week, so no worries about the time we need
to make this good,
i'll keep my coding train on the tracks we agreed on for the moment
Swell
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 08:14, Zowalla, Richard <
richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> 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
> > > > > > > > >
>
