Re: TomEE MicroProfile and Jakarta

[David Blevins]

It would be great to see us have compliant MicroProfile implementations 
somewhere in Apache; Geronimo, TomEE, CXF.  It's still my personal preference 
--  It makes very little sense to go through the effort to create a spec and 
tck to enable multiple implementations that can compete/innovate and then wind 
up with just one implementation in the industry.

That said, from a TomEE perspective we're struggling to keep up with all specs, 
Jakarta EE and MicroProfile.  Part of that is we do try to uniquely implement 
specs, while everyone else just uses the exact same implementation.  We're not 
really playing the same game.  We would need more resources than the 
competition to compete in the way we have been attempting.  However, because 
we're behind, we end up with fewer resources and larger gaps between 
implementations and over time our goals becomes harder, not easier.

I wonder if we should switch to the SmallRye implementations where needed.  Not 
because we've given up hope of having Apache implementations, but because if we 
assume our desire to do the implementation work here is a constant and we know 
the time to get there will some number of months and that will likely be after 
complete our Jakarta EE spec work, which is also some number of months... we're 
basically talking sometime 2023.  The question then becomes, how do we want to 
spend our time till then?  Do we want to spend it in a compliant state or a 
non-compliant state?

If we spend the next year and change in a compliant state, using the SmallRye 
impls where needed until we've created compliant Apache versions, then we are 
competitive and will gain resources.  The date on which we would have resources 
to create those Apache implementations would likely be sooner.  If we spend the 
next year and change still not in a compliant state (as we've been since 2020), 
then we'l continue to take a resource hit and the date on which we would have 
resources to create those Apache implementations would likely be later.  There 
are also other risks with this approach.

So though it may seem backwards my gut says, unless we get a dramatic influx of 
resources from nowhere, we should use SmallRye where we need until we have the 
time to dedicate to the Apache implementations.


-David


> On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:44 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Small update regarding jakarta namespace switch and MicroProfile. Adding
> Geronimo dev@list because we are using most of the Geronimo implementations
> 
> In order to migrate, we have created a shaded version of all MicroProfile
> APIs to relocate all javax to jakarta. It worked but it's causing some
> issues with TCK. They are not relocated so of course, all TCK are failing.
> 
> I wanted to see how far we are regarding our implementations, so I went
> ahead and updated all TCK to the latest version (and compatible with the
> Jakarta namespace).
> 
> The other option would be to grab all the TCK and create their equivalent
> in jakarta namespace using the same approach as for the APIs.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: TomEE MicroProfile and Jakarta

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi JL,

Think we - as a vendor - shouldn't relocate or create any TCK flavor. AFAIK
Microprofile did migrate their last version to jakarta so they should have
some TCK somewhere - we can use snapshots in a profile for ex.
AFAIK we have some road to upgrade to last versions but it also broke
dramatically backward compatibility for end users - from my user side this
is one of the reason making microprofile > 1.0 (ie pure EE) abandonned - so
not sure how we want to tackle that since breaking for no real new feature
is not great for a community but if we want to maintain some impl we'll
have to go that way at some point anyway, ideas welcomed.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le jeu. 31 mars 2022 à 09:51, Jean-Louis Monteiro 
a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Small update regarding jakarta namespace switch and MicroProfile. Adding
> Geronimo dev@list because we are using most of the Geronimo
> implementations
>
> In order to migrate, we have created a shaded version of all MicroProfile
> APIs to relocate all javax to jakarta. It worked but it's causing some
> issues with TCK. They are not relocated so of course, all TCK are failing.
>
> I wanted to see how far we are regarding our implementations, so I went
> ahead and updated all TCK to the latest version (and compatible with the
> Jakarta namespace).
>
> The other option would be to grab all the TCK and create their equivalent
> in jakarta namespace using the same approach as for the APIs.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>

TomEE MicroProfile and Jakarta

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Hi,

Small update regarding jakarta namespace switch and MicroProfile. Adding
Geronimo dev@list because we are using most of the Geronimo implementations

In order to migrate, we have created a shaded version of all MicroProfile
APIs to relocate all javax to jakarta. It worked but it's causing some
issues with TCK. They are not relocated so of course, all TCK are failing.

I wanted to see how far we are regarding our implementations, so I went
ahead and updated all TCK to the latest version (and compatible with the
Jakarta namespace).

The other option would be to grab all the TCK and create their equivalent
in jakarta namespace using the same approach as for the APIs.

What are your thoughts?

--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com