Re: Regarding Meecrowave Subproject

[Mark Struberg]

+1

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 09.01.2017 um 14:18 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> makes me think we should probably add to the doc a page about meecrowave
> target. we played in the microprofile trend but we are not exactly coming
> from there actually, wdyt?
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
> 
> 
> 2017-01-09 14:16 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> It was mostly discussed on the list and with committs starting with
>> October or so.
>> 
>> I also like to emphase that we have the tomcat integration since almost
>> the beginning.
>> We just missed the bundling. But this was really frequently asked for!
>> So from this aspect it's just a small enhancement over what we already do
>> since 2009.
>> 
>> But since Tomcat and OWB has different release cycles it did not make
>> sense to do it in the owb/trunk but it must get it's own independent
>> release cycle. And thus a new SVN root (simply because of how Maven works).
>> 
>> Regarding Incubator or not: Incubator is for new _external_ work. All the
>> work of Meecrowave is done by OWB committers inside OWB. And again: it's
>> not entirely new but just an enhancement over what we already provided
>> since 2009.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 09.01.2017 um 09:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >> :
>>> 
>>> Hi Gurkan,
>>> 
>>> very good question ;)
>>> 
>>> We actually debated more places - think half of the discussion was on IRC
>>> but there was a thread there as well.
>>> 
>>> Let me try to summurize it.
>>> 
>>> First of all a quick reminder: meecrowave is first OWB+Tomcat+CXF (before
>>> being microprofile which is just a buzz word today and doesn't mean more
>>> than this). Said otherwise it is the core of any potential server today
>> in
>>> a smooth fashion (embeddable, presetup etc).
>>> 
>>> Then in term of where to do it:
>>> 
>>> - incubator: community will be OWB and/or Tomcat and/or CXF -> no point
>> to
>>> create a new project with the same community (we kind of get this as an
>>> issue for several EE sub projects so we tried to avoid it)
>>> - Tomcat: not their philosophy and goal to do more than tomcat scope
>>> (JAX-RS and CDI are clearly out of their bounds)
>>> - CXF: would be a good place but CDI stays core of meecrowave and not
>> their
>>> central knowledge yet
>>> - TomEE: no real force there and TomEE has a few big pitfalls like being
>>> associated with a full blown server which make most of its subprojects
>>> eliminated before being evaluated even if not accurate
>>> - OWB: Tomcat/OWB integration is a real plus for OWB, CXF is likely a "?"
>>> but the CXF part is not that much in meecrowave, most of the code is
>>> Tomcat/OWB integration and config
>>> 
>>> We had the first discusiion on http://markmail.org/thread/
>> vh6x3u7yt6ex2fp2
>>> IIRC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Blog
>>>  | Github > rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2017-01-09 9:11 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu > invalid>:
>>> 
 Hi all
 First of all happy new year!
 As I am a founder and keen observer of the project (hope to commit much
 more time this year), I would like to ask a question regarding the new
 subproject Meecrowave. Why would we create such a sub-project under
 OpenWebBeans? From my perspective, OpenWebBeans only aim is to implement
 CDI specifications. If we would like to create a such a microprofile
 server, we may have to first write an incubator project proposal,
 http://incubator.apache.org/
 Moreover, I think that this subproject must be under developed in Apache
 TomEE, not in OpenWebBeans.
 
 Do we have any discussion about this topic in the dev or private list
>> that
 I did not catch?
 Regards.
 Gurkan-
 
 
 
 
>> 
>> 

Re: Regarding Meecrowave Subproject

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

makes me think we should probably add to the doc a page about meecrowave
target. we played in the microprofile trend but we are not exactly coming
from there actually, wdyt?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory


2017-01-09 14:16 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> It was mostly discussed on the list and with committs starting with
> October or so.
>
> I also like to emphase that we have the tomcat integration since almost
> the beginning.
> We just missed the bundling. But this was really frequently asked for!
> So from this aspect it's just a small enhancement over what we already do
> since 2009.
>
> But since Tomcat and OWB has different release cycles it did not make
> sense to do it in the owb/trunk but it must get it's own independent
> release cycle. And thus a new SVN root (simply because of how Maven works).
>
> Regarding Incubator or not: Incubator is for new _external_ work. All the
> work of Meecrowave is done by OWB committers inside OWB. And again: it's
> not entirely new but just an enhancement over what we already provided
> since 2009.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 09.01.2017 um 09:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > Hi Gurkan,
> >
> > very good question ;)
> >
> > We actually debated more places - think half of the discussion was on IRC
> > but there was a thread there as well.
> >
> > Let me try to summurize it.
> >
> > First of all a quick reminder: meecrowave is first OWB+Tomcat+CXF (before
> > being microprofile which is just a buzz word today and doesn't mean more
> > than this). Said otherwise it is the core of any potential server today
> in
> > a smooth fashion (embeddable, presetup etc).
> >
> > Then in term of where to do it:
> >
> > - incubator: community will be OWB and/or Tomcat and/or CXF -> no point
> to
> > create a new project with the same community (we kind of get this as an
> > issue for several EE sub projects so we tried to avoid it)
> > - Tomcat: not their philosophy and goal to do more than tomcat scope
> > (JAX-RS and CDI are clearly out of their bounds)
> > - CXF: would be a good place but CDI stays core of meecrowave and not
> their
> > central knowledge yet
> > - TomEE: no real force there and TomEE has a few big pitfalls like being
> > associated with a full blown server which make most of its subprojects
> > eliminated before being evaluated even if not accurate
> > - OWB: Tomcat/OWB integration is a real plus for OWB, CXF is likely a "?"
> > but the CXF part is not that much in meecrowave, most of the code is
> > Tomcat/OWB integration and config
> >
> > We had the first discusiion on http://markmail.org/thread/
> vh6x3u7yt6ex2fp2
> > IIRC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
> > 
> >
> > 2017-01-09 9:11 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu  invalid>:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >> First of all happy new year!
> >> As I am a founder and keen observer of the project (hope to commit much
> >> more time this year), I would like to ask a question regarding the new
> >> subproject Meecrowave. Why would we create such a sub-project under
> >> OpenWebBeans? From my perspective, OpenWebBeans only aim is to implement
> >> CDI specifications. If we would like to create a such a microprofile
> >> server, we may have to first write an incubator project proposal,
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/
> >> Moreover, I think that this subproject must be under developed in Apache
> >> TomEE, not in OpenWebBeans.
> >>
> >> Do we have any discussion about this topic in the dev or private list
> that
> >> I did not catch?
> >> Regards.
> >> Gurkan-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Regarding Meecrowave Subproject

[Mark Struberg]

It was mostly discussed on the list and with committs starting with October or 
so.

I also like to emphase that we have the tomcat integration since almost the 
beginning. 
We just missed the bundling. But this was really frequently asked for!
So from this aspect it's just a small enhancement over what we already do since 
2009.

But since Tomcat and OWB has different release cycles it did not make sense to 
do it in the owb/trunk but it must get it's own independent release cycle. And 
thus a new SVN root (simply because of how Maven works).

Regarding Incubator or not: Incubator is for new _external_ work. All the work 
of Meecrowave is done by OWB committers inside OWB. And again: it's not 
entirely new but just an enhancement over what we already provided since 2009.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 09.01.2017 um 09:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> Hi Gurkan,
> 
> very good question ;)
> 
> We actually debated more places - think half of the discussion was on IRC
> but there was a thread there as well.
> 
> Let me try to summurize it.
> 
> First of all a quick reminder: meecrowave is first OWB+Tomcat+CXF (before
> being microprofile which is just a buzz word today and doesn't mean more
> than this). Said otherwise it is the core of any potential server today in
> a smooth fashion (embeddable, presetup etc).
> 
> Then in term of where to do it:
> 
> - incubator: community will be OWB and/or Tomcat and/or CXF -> no point to
> create a new project with the same community (we kind of get this as an
> issue for several EE sub projects so we tried to avoid it)
> - Tomcat: not their philosophy and goal to do more than tomcat scope
> (JAX-RS and CDI are clearly out of their bounds)
> - CXF: would be a good place but CDI stays core of meecrowave and not their
> central knowledge yet
> - TomEE: no real force there and TomEE has a few big pitfalls like being
> associated with a full blown server which make most of its subprojects
> eliminated before being evaluated even if not accurate
> - OWB: Tomcat/OWB integration is a real plus for OWB, CXF is likely a "?"
> but the CXF part is not that much in meecrowave, most of the code is
> Tomcat/OWB integration and config
> 
> We had the first discusiion on http://markmail.org/thread/vh6x3u7yt6ex2fp2
> IIRC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
> 
> 
> 2017-01-09 9:11 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu :
> 
>> Hi all
>> First of all happy new year!
>> As I am a founder and keen observer of the project (hope to commit much
>> more time this year), I would like to ask a question regarding the new
>> subproject Meecrowave. Why would we create such a sub-project under
>> OpenWebBeans? From my perspective, OpenWebBeans only aim is to implement
>> CDI specifications. If we would like to create a such a microprofile
>> server, we may have to first write an incubator project proposal,
>> http://incubator.apache.org/
>> Moreover, I think that this subproject must be under developed in Apache
>> TomEE, not in OpenWebBeans.
>> 
>> Do we have any discussion about this topic in the dev or private list that
>> I did not catch?
>> Regards.
>> Gurkan-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: Regarding Meecrowave Subproject

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2017-01-09 10:50 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu :

> Thanks Romain.
>
> From my experience all the way in projects running in ASF, OW2 and some
> other open source orgranizations, subprojects like this confuses  user and
> developers/committers. If we need a custom microprofile based server  (or
> an implementation of the specification which results from Microprofile
> group or from Oracle Java EE ), we need definitely to have a new incubator
> project or to include it into the Apache TomEE. Clearly, OpenWebBeans IMHO
> may not be a good place for such project.
>

Well this highly depends the community, if you check karaf for instance
this is not the case at all.

Also note that microprofile is the second core value of meecrowave IMHO,
first one being an highly integrated tomcat/owb server (drop tomcat, drop
OWB and you are far from the quality of meecrowave but that's what you'll
get from any microprofile server not bound to a particular container).


> If you look at the current Meecrowave project, it contains some mix of EE
> components with integration code like Apache TomEE. In addition to
> duplicate ourselves, we may create another profile in Apache TomEE in
> addition to Web Profile, Plus, Plume and Micro Profile. We call it TomEE
> Microprofile. I think it is much more logical.
>

Not possible cause of tomee architecture + design is way different and not
compatible. Also saw tomitribe already claims there is a tomee microprofile
so it wouldnt fit I think.

Also if you check the code there is only *one* "mix" which is the jta
module (all others are not if you check), this one is good to have but not
a core feature and can be given back to geronimo at some point. JPA one is
not about EE and it is a strong choice to not align on EE API to propose a
1. modern API 2. avoid misleading API where you think you can use some
property and you can't cause it actually implements it differently.



To summarize the project is really in between OWB and CXF but with a high
knowledge need in OWB layer so I still think it makes sense to have it here.


> We may discuss it more of course
> Thanks and Regards.
> Gurkan-
>
> On Monday, January 9, 2017 10:26 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi Gurkan,
>
> very good question ;)
>
> We actually debated more places - think half of the discussion was on IRC
> but there was a thread there as well.
>
> Let me try to summurize it.
>
> First of all a quick reminder: meecrowave is first OWB+Tomcat+CXF (before
> being microprofile which is just a buzz word today and doesn't mean more
> than this). Said otherwise it is the core of any potential server today in
> a smooth fashion (embeddable, presetup etc).
>
> Then in term of where to do it:
>
> - incubator: community will be OWB and/or Tomcat and/or CXF -> no point to
> create a new project with the same community (we kind of get this as an
> issue for several EE sub projects so we tried to avoid it)
> - Tomcat: not their philosophy and goal to do more than tomcat scope
> (JAX-RS and CDI are clearly out of their bounds)
> - CXF: would be a good place but CDI stays core of meecrowave and not their
> central knowledge yet
> - TomEE: no real force there and TomEE has a few big pitfalls like being
> associated with a full blown server which make most of its subprojects
> eliminated before being evaluated even if not accurate
> - OWB: Tomcat/OWB integration is a real plus for OWB, CXF is likely a "?"
> but the CXF part is not that much in meecrowave, most of the code is
> Tomcat/OWB integration and config
>
> We had the first discusiion on http://markmail.org/thread/vh6x3u7yt6ex2fp2
> IIRC
>
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
> 
>
> 2017-01-09 9:11 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu  invalid>:
>
> > Hi all
> > First of all happy new year!
> > As I am a founder and keen observer of the project (hope to commit much
> > more time this year), I would like to ask a question regarding the new
> > subproject Meecrowave. Why would we create such a sub-project under
> > OpenWebBeans? From my perspective, OpenWebBeans only aim is to implement
> > CDI specifications. If we would like to create a such a microprofile
> > server, we may have to first write an incubator project proposal,
> > http://incubator.apache.org/
> > Moreover, I think that this subproject must be under developed in Apache
> > TomEE, not in OpenWebBeans.
> >
> > Do we have any discussion about this topic in the dev or private list
> that
> > I did not catch?
> > Regards.
> > Gurkan-
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: Regarding Meecrowave Subproject

[Gurkan Erdogdu]

Thanks Romain.

>From my experience all the way in projects running in ASF, OW2 and some other 
>open source orgranizations, subprojects like this confuses  user and  
>developers/committers. If we need a custom microprofile based server  (or an 
>implementation of the specification which results from Microprofile group or 
>from Oracle Java EE ), we need definitely to have a new incubator project or 
>to include it into the Apache TomEE. Clearly, OpenWebBeans IMHO may not be a 
>good place for such project.
If you look at the current Meecrowave project, it contains some mix of EE 
components with integration code like Apache TomEE. In addition to duplicate 
ourselves, we may create another profile in Apache TomEE in addition to Web 
Profile, Plus, Plume and Micro Profile. We call it TomEE Microprofile. I think 
it is much more logical.
We may discuss it more of course
Thanks and Regards.
Gurkan- 

On Monday, January 9, 2017 10:26 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
 wrote:
 

 Hi Gurkan,

very good question ;)

We actually debated more places - think half of the discussion was on IRC
but there was a thread there as well.

Let me try to summurize it.

First of all a quick reminder: meecrowave is first OWB+Tomcat+CXF (before
being microprofile which is just a buzz word today and doesn't mean more
than this). Said otherwise it is the core of any potential server today in
a smooth fashion (embeddable, presetup etc).

Then in term of where to do it:

- incubator: community will be OWB and/or Tomcat and/or CXF -> no point to
create a new project with the same community (we kind of get this as an
issue for several EE sub projects so we tried to avoid it)
- Tomcat: not their philosophy and goal to do more than tomcat scope
(JAX-RS and CDI are clearly out of their bounds)
- CXF: would be a good place but CDI stays core of meecrowave and not their
central knowledge yet
- TomEE: no real force there and TomEE has a few big pitfalls like being
associated with a full blown server which make most of its subprojects
eliminated before being evaluated even if not accurate
- OWB: Tomcat/OWB integration is a real plus for OWB, CXF is likely a "?"
but the CXF part is not that much in meecrowave, most of the code is
Tomcat/OWB integration and config

We had the first discusiion on http://markmail.org/thread/vh6x3u7yt6ex2fp2
IIRC




Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory


2017-01-09 9:11 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu :

> Hi all
> First of all happy new year!
> As I am a founder and keen observer of the project (hope to commit much
> more time this year), I would like to ask a question regarding the new
> subproject Meecrowave. Why would we create such a sub-project under
> OpenWebBeans? From my perspective, OpenWebBeans only aim is to implement
> CDI specifications. If we would like to create a such a microprofile
> server, we may have to first write an incubator project proposal,
> http://incubator.apache.org/
> Moreover, I think that this subproject must be under developed in Apache
> TomEE, not in OpenWebBeans.
>
> Do we have any discussion about this topic in the dev or private list that
> I did not catch?
> Regards.
> Gurkan-
>
>
>
>


   

Re: Regarding Meecrowave Subproject

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi Gurkan,

very good question ;)

We actually debated more places - think half of the discussion was on IRC
but there was a thread there as well.

Let me try to summurize it.

First of all a quick reminder: meecrowave is first OWB+Tomcat+CXF (before
being microprofile which is just a buzz word today and doesn't mean more
than this). Said otherwise it is the core of any potential server today in
a smooth fashion (embeddable, presetup etc).

Then in term of where to do it:

- incubator: community will be OWB and/or Tomcat and/or CXF -> no point to
create a new project with the same community (we kind of get this as an
issue for several EE sub projects so we tried to avoid it)
- Tomcat: not their philosophy and goal to do more than tomcat scope
(JAX-RS and CDI are clearly out of their bounds)
- CXF: would be a good place but CDI stays core of meecrowave and not their
central knowledge yet
- TomEE: no real force there and TomEE has a few big pitfalls like being
associated with a full blown server which make most of its subprojects
eliminated before being evaluated even if not accurate
- OWB: Tomcat/OWB integration is a real plus for OWB, CXF is likely a "?"
but the CXF part is not that much in meecrowave, most of the code is
Tomcat/OWB integration and config

We had the first discusiion on http://markmail.org/thread/vh6x3u7yt6ex2fp2
IIRC




Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory


2017-01-09 9:11 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu :

> Hi all
> First of all happy new year!
> As I am a founder and keen observer of the project (hope to commit much
> more time this year), I would like to ask a question regarding the new
> subproject Meecrowave. Why would we create such a sub-project under
> OpenWebBeans? From my perspective, OpenWebBeans only aim is to implement
> CDI specifications. If we would like to create a such a microprofile
> server, we may have to first write an incubator project proposal,
> http://incubator.apache.org/
> Moreover, I think that this subproject must be under developed in Apache
> TomEE, not in OpenWebBeans.
>
> Do we have any discussion about this topic in the dev or private list that
> I did not catch?
> Regards.
> Gurkan-
>
>
>
>