Re: TOMEE-3846 flavors comparison page / TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[Zowalla, Richard]

I agree with both of you :)

It is a common question and is often asked on Stackoverflow: which
version of TomEE supports which JDK, which JEE Standard is covered with
which TomEE version, which TomEE version should be used in 2022, ...

I am sure we can be more clear on the website. I am happy to discuss /
give my thoughts on anything, you provide via a PR, Swell! :)

Every single contributions matters.

Gruß
Richard


Am Donnerstag, dem 31.03.2022 um 14:33 -0700 schrieb David Blevins:
> > On Mar 31, 2022, at 2:01 PM, Swell 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > It would be great to have per-major comparison pages. And in fact,
> > there are, but their rendering are broken. i have some free time to
> > work on it. here are the existing urls I thought using
> > 
> > https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/docs/comparison.html
> > https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/docs/comparison.html
> 
> I totally forgot we had those pages and it looks like I'm the one who
> put them there (and left them broken for 3 years):
> 
>  - 
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/commit/f779264f01c80e632649ff6dbe75f9b78bd359f0#diff-96bf7bb0a199a293ca950988b58249419c2a2cf667bf100750553c49671f9c63
> 
> Getting those pages updated in at least the 8 and 9 branch would be
> great!  Here's where they live:
> 
>  - https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/docs/comparison.adoc
>  - 
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/tomee-8.x/docs/comparison.adoc
> 
> > listing the required Java and Jakarta specs version could be nice
> > too, i cant take ideas from 
> > https://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html
> 
> That's exactly the page I was thinking of :)  We have so many specs,
> I think we'd want to keep our table the way it is now with the spec
> names going up and down on the left rather than across the top, but
> we can definitely add the spec versions like they have.
> 
> An interesting aspect of the Java versions is Tomcat has "11 and
> later", where we don't really have that luxury.  We use the ASM
> library to do a lot of work and that library will actual fail if you
> throw it a new Java version it wasn't explicitly written to
> handle.  So for a long time we could support Java 8, but not Java 11
> for example.  We only just added support for Java 17 in TomEE 8.0.8.
> 
> I'm open to ideas on how we show that kind of thing.  Maybe we need a
> table of the JDKs and "TomEE 8.0.8 and later" and similar written
> after each JDK version?
> 
> > the main comparison page would have 2 synthesis table (flavors
> > comparison and versions comparison)
> > the per-major ones would have the detailed tables (specs, impls) 
> 
> Open to any thoughts.  Feel free to hack something up.
> 
> > I can put more thoughts on builds afterward :-)
> 
> Sure!  Welcome to the project btw! :)
> 
> 
> -David
> 
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 20:19, David Blevins <
> > david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank you, Swell, for helping to get those versions aligned!
> > 
> > Some high-level thoughts:
> > 
> >  - Romain is right that we could potentially use the TomEE-Maven-
> > Plugin to build the various distributions.  Swell also had some
> > ideas on simplifying how the distributions are built.  We've also
> > had a couple threads about completely eliminating the war file
> > distributions.  Now that the master branch is TomEE 9.0 and that is
> > not final yet, do we want to take the time to work on this?
> > 
> >  - I've long thought it was odd our TomEE MicroProfile distribution
> > was larger than the TomEE WebProfile distribution.  For TomEE 10,
> > which will need to have a Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile
> > implementation, perhaps we could strip down the TomEE MicroProfile
> > distribution so it doubles as Jakarta EE Core Profile /
> > MicroProfile?  (again not really for TomEE 9, but soon).
> > 
> >  - Implementations are different for the various branches.  In
> > TomEE 8 we're using Apache BVal, but for TomEE 9 we're using
> > Hibernate Bean Validator because it supports the jakarta namespace
> > and is compliant.
> > 
> >  - Comparison page.  Given each version has differences in things
> > it implements and the implementations used, do we want a
> > specialized version of the comparison.html page that we put in each
> > branches documentation?  Since it would be dedicated to a specific
> > TomEE version, we could not just list the specification names, but
> > also the specification versions and link to the actual
> > specifications themselves.  Thinking there could be URLs like these
> > 
> > - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/comparison.html
> > - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/comparison.html
> > - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-10.0/comparison.html (future)
> > 
> > We could potentially also list the Java version required.
> > 
> > The generic comparison.html page at 
> > https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html could either stay as a
> > high-level view, or simply forward to the latest stable version
> > (which would be TomEE 8 at the moment).  We could al

Re: TomEE MicroProfile and Jakarta

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

The risk for TomEE (IMHO indeed) is that, using smallrye, you break the
core value "apache" or at least "owned by apache" and break the other core
value "lightweight" since it comes with a tons of uneeded stuff and
implementation is not even JAXRS friendly (it breaks literally jaxrs and
cdi at multiple levels) so it can mean contributing to smallrye which means
at the end asking mircoprofile to not be a spec but just an implementation
and TomEE to stick to a dedicated MP distro (not in all others) to not kill
itself - not saying it does not makes sense but it is what it means
concretely.

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



Le jeu. 31 mars 2022 à 21:36, David Blevins  a
écrit :

> 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 <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> 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
>
>

Re: TOMEE-3846 flavors comparison page / TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[David Blevins]

> On Mar 31, 2022, at 2:01 PM, Swell  wrote:
> 
> 
> It would be great to have per-major comparison pages. And in fact, there are, 
> but their rendering are broken. i have some free time to work on it. here are 
> the existing urls I thought using
> 
> https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/docs/comparison.html
> https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/docs/comparison.html

I totally forgot we had those pages and it looks like I'm the one who put them 
there (and left them broken for 3 years):

 - 
https://github.com/apache/tomee/commit/f779264f01c80e632649ff6dbe75f9b78bd359f0#diff-96bf7bb0a199a293ca950988b58249419c2a2cf667bf100750553c49671f9c63

Getting those pages updated in at least the 8 and 9 branch would be great!  
Here's where they live:

 - https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/docs/comparison.adoc
 - https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/tomee-8.x/docs/comparison.adoc

> listing the required Java and Jakarta specs version could be nice too, i cant 
> take ideas from https://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html

That's exactly the page I was thinking of :)  We have so many specs, I think 
we'd want to keep our table the way it is now with the spec names going up and 
down on the left rather than across the top, but we can definitely add the spec 
versions like they have.

An interesting aspect of the Java versions is Tomcat has "11 and later", where 
we don't really have that luxury.  We use the ASM library to do a lot of work 
and that library will actual fail if you throw it a new Java version it wasn't 
explicitly written to handle.  So for a long time we could support Java 8, but 
not Java 11 for example.  We only just added support for Java 17 in TomEE 8.0.8.

I'm open to ideas on how we show that kind of thing.  Maybe we need a table of 
the JDKs and "TomEE 8.0.8 and later" and similar written after each JDK version?

> 
> the main comparison page would have 2 synthesis table (flavors comparison and 
> versions comparison)
> the per-major ones would have the detailed tables (specs, impls) 

Open to any thoughts.  Feel free to hack something up.

> I can put more thoughts on builds afterward :-)

Sure!  Welcome to the project btw! :)


-David

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 20:19, David Blevins  wrote:
> Thank you, Swell, for helping to get those versions aligned!
> 
> Some high-level thoughts:
> 
>  - Romain is right that we could potentially use the TomEE-Maven-Plugin to 
> build the various distributions.  Swell also had some ideas on simplifying 
> how the distributions are built.  We've also had a couple threads about 
> completely eliminating the war file distributions.  Now that the master 
> branch is TomEE 9.0 and that is not final yet, do we want to take the time to 
> work on this?
> 
>  - I've long thought it was odd our TomEE MicroProfile distribution was 
> larger than the TomEE WebProfile distribution.  For TomEE 10, which will need 
> to have a Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile implementation, perhaps we could strip 
> down the TomEE MicroProfile distribution so it doubles as Jakarta EE Core 
> Profile / MicroProfile?  (again not really for TomEE 9, but soon).
> 
>  - Implementations are different for the various branches.  In TomEE 8 we're 
> using Apache BVal, but for TomEE 9 we're using Hibernate Bean Validator 
> because it supports the jakarta namespace and is compliant.
> 
>  - Comparison page.  Given each version has differences in things it 
> implements and the implementations used, do we want a specialized version of 
> the comparison.html page that we put in each branches documentation?  Since 
> it would be dedicated to a specific TomEE version, we could not just list the 
> specification names, but also the specification versions and link to the 
> actual specifications themselves.  Thinking there could be URLs like these
> 
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/comparison.html
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/comparison.html
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-10.0/comparison.html (future)
> 
> We could potentially also list the Java version required.
> 
> The generic comparison.html page at https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html 
> could either stay as a high-level view, or simply forward to the latest 
> stable version (which would be TomEE 8 at the moment).  We could also take a 
> different direction with the generic https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html 
> page and have it be kind of a marketing page with fancy graphics to talk 
> about each distribution at a high level.  Sort of like the "TomEE Flavors" 
> section of our website main page (https://tomee.apache.org) but a more 
> complete page where there is kind of an image and description of each 
> distribution.  People can then use the more detailed comparison pages for the 
> full list of 40+ specifications we support.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
> > On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:56 AM, Zowalla, Richard 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > I we

Re: TOMEE-3846 flavors comparison page / TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[Swell]

It would be great to have per-major comparison pages. And in fact, there
are, but their rendering are broken. i have some free time to work on it.
here are the existing urls I thought using

https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/docs/comparison.html
https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/docs/comparison.html

listing the required Java and Jakarta specs version could be nice too, i
cant take ideas from https://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html

the main comparison page would have 2 synthesis table (flavors comparison
and versions comparison)
the per-major ones would have the detailed tables (specs, impls)

I can put more thoughts on builds afterward :-)

Swell

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 20:19, David Blevins  wrote:

> Thank you, Swell, for helping to get those versions aligned!
>
> Some high-level thoughts:
>
>  - Romain is right that we could potentially use the TomEE-Maven-Plugin to
> build the various distributions.  Swell also had some ideas on simplifying
> how the distributions are built.  We've also had a couple threads about
> completely eliminating the war file distributions.  Now that the master
> branch is TomEE 9.0 and that is not final yet, do we want to take the time
> to work on this?
>
>  - I've long thought it was odd our TomEE MicroProfile distribution was
> larger than the TomEE WebProfile distribution.  For TomEE 10, which will
> need to have a Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile implementation, perhaps we could
> strip down the TomEE MicroProfile distribution so it doubles as Jakarta EE
> Core Profile / MicroProfile?  (again not really for TomEE 9, but soon).
>
>  - Implementations are different for the various branches.  In TomEE 8
> we're using Apache BVal, but for TomEE 9 we're using Hibernate Bean
> Validator because it supports the jakarta namespace and is compliant.
>
>  - Comparison page.  Given each version has differences in things it
> implements and the implementations used, do we want a specialized version
> of the comparison.html page that we put in each branches documentation?
> Since it would be dedicated to a specific TomEE version, we could not just
> list the specification names, but also the specification versions and link
> to the actual specifications themselves.  Thinking there could be URLs like
> these
>
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/comparison.html
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/comparison.html
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-10.0/comparison.html (future)
>
> We could potentially also list the Java version required.
>
> The generic comparison.html page at
> https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html could either stay as a
> high-level view, or simply forward to the latest stable version (which
> would be TomEE 8 at the moment).  We could also take a different direction
> with the generic https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html page and have
> it be kind of a marketing page with fancy graphics to talk about each
> distribution at a high level.  Sort of like the "TomEE Flavors" section of
> our website main page (https://tomee.apache.org) but a more complete page
> where there is kind of an image and description of each distribution.
> People can then use the more detailed comparison pages for the full list of
> 40+ specifications we support.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:56 AM, Zowalla, Richard <
> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> >
> > I went ahead and merged the changes by Swell. @Swell: Thank you!!
> > Cherry picked them to master (9.x) as well.
> >
> > Now the distributions contain the libs specified on the website.
> >
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> >
> > Am Montag, dem 28.03.2022 um 08:18 + schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> >> As we merged the comparision page, we should now tackle:
> >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/828
> >>
> >> There was a discussion regarding the original intentions of plume.
> >> If we agree, that "Those distributions are supposed to be the same
> >> minus the JPA and JSF providers.", then we should go a-head and merge
> >> it + port it to master.
> >>
> >> Gruß
> >> Richard
> >>
> >>
> >> Am Freitag, dem 25.03.2022 um 11:29 +0100 schrieb Swell:
> >>> Thanks for your kind feedback.
> >>>
> >>> @Richard, I'll gladly change Tomee Plume pom to include BatchEE, PR
> >>> :
> >>> in
> >>> progress with a blocker i can also resolve.
> >>>
> >>> @David, about the flavors page, i think your suggestions are
> >>> simpler
> >>> and
> >>> better, applied them on names consistency and added a table of
> >>> implementations.
> >>>
> >>> what need for this list of implementations ?
> >>> * For my students => My usual scenario is that i need to remind
> >>> them
> >>> of
> >>> what is provided by Tomee vs other servers. "they dont need HK2 nor
> >>> Jersey
> >>> if they have the Plus flavor."
> >>> * For the general web site visitors => I wonder if people would
> >>> prefer perf
> >>> metrics and tck results, rather than comparing what is

Re: TOMEE-3846 flavors comparison page / TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[David Blevins]

> On Mar 31, 2022, at 1:06 PM, Thomas Andraschko  
> wrote:
> 
> +1 to remove war distribution
> 
> AFAIR we shade Jakarta in BVal?
> Otherwise i would also work on a bigbang change in BVal

We tried to use the shaded version, but there were a lot of TCK test failures 
and only a day left to make the Jakarta EE 9.1 release deadline, so we did a 
quick switch to Hibernate Bean Validation.

If you have any energy to do a bigbang change that'd be awesome.  On any TCK 
failures we could divide and conquer.  IMO, it'd be totally fine to post the 
list of failures here as well and try and recruit TomEE people to come work on 
the bval lists.

> Do we already use MyFaces 3.0 in master?

Yep, we're currently on 3.0.1.  Note, we used TomEE Plume to certify which uses 
Mojarra, so I don't know off-hand if there are TCK failures in JSF on TomEE 
Plus.  Looking at the last run (which was quite a while ago), the results were 
pretty darn good!

 - https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1623434602963&path=com.sun.ts.tests.jsf


-David

> David Blevins  schrieb am Do., 31. März 2022,
> 20:19:
> 
>> Thank you, Swell, for helping to get those versions aligned!
>> 
>> Some high-level thoughts:
>> 
>> - Romain is right that we could potentially use the TomEE-Maven-Plugin to
>> build the various distributions.  Swell also had some ideas on simplifying
>> how the distributions are built.  We've also had a couple threads about
>> completely eliminating the war file distributions.  Now that the master
>> branch is TomEE 9.0 and that is not final yet, do we want to take the time
>> to work on this?
>> 
>> - I've long thought it was odd our TomEE MicroProfile distribution was
>> larger than the TomEE WebProfile distribution.  For TomEE 10, which will
>> need to have a Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile implementation, perhaps we could
>> strip down the TomEE MicroProfile distribution so it doubles as Jakarta EE
>> Core Profile / MicroProfile?  (again not really for TomEE 9, but soon).
>> 
>> - Implementations are different for the various branches.  In TomEE 8
>> we're using Apache BVal, but for TomEE 9 we're using Hibernate Bean
>> Validator because it supports the jakarta namespace and is compliant.
>> 
>> - Comparison page.  Given each version has differences in things it
>> implements and the implementations used, do we want a specialized version
>> of the comparison.html page that we put in each branches documentation?
>> Since it would be dedicated to a specific TomEE version, we could not just
>> list the specification names, but also the specification versions and link
>> to the actual specifications themselves.  Thinking there could be URLs like
>> these
>> 
>>- https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/comparison.html
>>- https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/comparison.html
>>- https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-10.0/comparison.html (future)
>> 
>> We could potentially also list the Java version required.
>> 
>> The generic comparison.html page at
>> https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html could either stay as a
>> high-level view, or simply forward to the latest stable version (which
>> would be TomEE 8 at the moment).  We could also take a different direction
>> with the generic https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html page and have
>> it be kind of a marketing page with fancy graphics to talk about each
>> distribution at a high level.  Sort of like the "TomEE Flavors" section of
>> our website main page (https://tomee.apache.org) but a more complete page
>> where there is kind of an image and description of each distribution.
>> People can then use the more detailed comparison pages for the full list of
>> 40+ specifications we support.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> 
>>> On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:56 AM, Zowalla, Richard <
>> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I went ahead and merged the changes by Swell. @Swell: Thank you!!
>>> Cherry picked them to master (9.x) as well.
>>> 
>>> Now the distributions contain the libs specified on the website.
>>> 
>>> Gruß
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> Am Montag, dem 28.03.2022 um 08:18 + schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
 As we merged the comparision page, we should now tackle:
 https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/828
 
 There was a discussion regarding the original intentions of plume.
 If we agree, that "Those distributions are supposed to be the same
 minus the JPA and JSF providers.", then we should go a-head and merge
 it + port it to master.
 
 Gruß
 Richard
 
 
 Am Freitag, dem 25.03.2022 um 11:29 +0100 schrieb Swell:
> Thanks for your kind feedback.
> 
> @Richard, I'll gladly change Tomee Plume pom to include BatchEE, PR
> :
> in
> progress with a blocker i can also resolve.
> 
> @David, about the flavors page, i think your suggestions are
> simpler
> and
> better, applied them on names consistency and added a tab

Re: TOMEE-3846 flavors comparison page / TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[Thomas Andraschko]

+1 to remove war distribution

AFAIR we shade Jakarta in BVal?
Otherwise i would also work on a bigbang change in BVal

Do we already use MyFaces 3.0 in master?

David Blevins  schrieb am Do., 31. März 2022,
20:19:

> Thank you, Swell, for helping to get those versions aligned!
>
> Some high-level thoughts:
>
>  - Romain is right that we could potentially use the TomEE-Maven-Plugin to
> build the various distributions.  Swell also had some ideas on simplifying
> how the distributions are built.  We've also had a couple threads about
> completely eliminating the war file distributions.  Now that the master
> branch is TomEE 9.0 and that is not final yet, do we want to take the time
> to work on this?
>
>  - I've long thought it was odd our TomEE MicroProfile distribution was
> larger than the TomEE WebProfile distribution.  For TomEE 10, which will
> need to have a Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile implementation, perhaps we could
> strip down the TomEE MicroProfile distribution so it doubles as Jakarta EE
> Core Profile / MicroProfile?  (again not really for TomEE 9, but soon).
>
>  - Implementations are different for the various branches.  In TomEE 8
> we're using Apache BVal, but for TomEE 9 we're using Hibernate Bean
> Validator because it supports the jakarta namespace and is compliant.
>
>  - Comparison page.  Given each version has differences in things it
> implements and the implementations used, do we want a specialized version
> of the comparison.html page that we put in each branches documentation?
> Since it would be dedicated to a specific TomEE version, we could not just
> list the specification names, but also the specification versions and link
> to the actual specifications themselves.  Thinking there could be URLs like
> these
>
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/comparison.html
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/comparison.html
> - https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-10.0/comparison.html (future)
>
> We could potentially also list the Java version required.
>
> The generic comparison.html page at
> https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html could either stay as a
> high-level view, or simply forward to the latest stable version (which
> would be TomEE 8 at the moment).  We could also take a different direction
> with the generic https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html page and have
> it be kind of a marketing page with fancy graphics to talk about each
> distribution at a high level.  Sort of like the "TomEE Flavors" section of
> our website main page (https://tomee.apache.org) but a more complete page
> where there is kind of an image and description of each distribution.
> People can then use the more detailed comparison pages for the full list of
> 40+ specifications we support.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:56 AM, Zowalla, Richard <
> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> >
> > I went ahead and merged the changes by Swell. @Swell: Thank you!!
> > Cherry picked them to master (9.x) as well.
> >
> > Now the distributions contain the libs specified on the website.
> >
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> >
> > Am Montag, dem 28.03.2022 um 08:18 + schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> >> As we merged the comparision page, we should now tackle:
> >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/828
> >>
> >> There was a discussion regarding the original intentions of plume.
> >> If we agree, that "Those distributions are supposed to be the same
> >> minus the JPA and JSF providers.", then we should go a-head and merge
> >> it + port it to master.
> >>
> >> Gruß
> >> Richard
> >>
> >>
> >> Am Freitag, dem 25.03.2022 um 11:29 +0100 schrieb Swell:
> >>> Thanks for your kind feedback.
> >>>
> >>> @Richard, I'll gladly change Tomee Plume pom to include BatchEE, PR
> >>> :
> >>> in
> >>> progress with a blocker i can also resolve.
> >>>
> >>> @David, about the flavors page, i think your suggestions are
> >>> simpler
> >>> and
> >>> better, applied them on names consistency and added a table of
> >>> implementations.
> >>>
> >>> what need for this list of implementations ?
> >>> * For my students => My usual scenario is that i need to remind
> >>> them
> >>> of
> >>> what is provided by Tomee vs other servers. "they dont need HK2 nor
> >>> Jersey
> >>> if they have the Plus flavor."
> >>> * For the general web site visitors => I wonder if people would
> >>> prefer perf
> >>> metrics and tck results, rather than comparing what is provided by
> >>> Tomee vs
> >>> others. provided a web capture just for fun :
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13041580/image-2022-03-25-11-18-14-708.png
> >>>
> >>> i still believe the list of implementations is needed to know what
> >>> Tomee
> >>> provides, but David's suggestion is clearer.
> >>> here is the current version of the web page in the PR :
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13041581/image-2022-03-25-11-19-03-406.png
> >>>
> >>> On Fr

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-3846 flavors comparison page / TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[David Blevins]

Thank you, Swell, for helping to get those versions aligned!

Some high-level thoughts:

 - Romain is right that we could potentially use the TomEE-Maven-Plugin to 
build the various distributions.  Swell also had some ideas on simplifying how 
the distributions are built.  We've also had a couple threads about completely 
eliminating the war file distributions.  Now that the master branch is TomEE 
9.0 and that is not final yet, do we want to take the time to work on this?

 - I've long thought it was odd our TomEE MicroProfile distribution was larger 
than the TomEE WebProfile distribution.  For TomEE 10, which will need to have 
a Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile implementation, perhaps we could strip down the 
TomEE MicroProfile distribution so it doubles as Jakarta EE Core Profile / 
MicroProfile?  (again not really for TomEE 9, but soon).

 - Implementations are different for the various branches.  In TomEE 8 we're 
using Apache BVal, but for TomEE 9 we're using Hibernate Bean Validator because 
it supports the jakarta namespace and is compliant.

 - Comparison page.  Given each version has differences in things it implements 
and the implementations used, do we want a specialized version of the 
comparison.html page that we put in each branches documentation?  Since it 
would be dedicated to a specific TomEE version, we could not just list the 
specification names, but also the specification versions and link to the actual 
specifications themselves.  Thinking there could be URLs like these

- https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-8.0/comparison.html
- https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-9.0/comparison.html
- https://tomee.apache.org/tomee-10.0/comparison.html (future)

We could potentially also list the Java version required.

The generic comparison.html page at https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html 
could either stay as a high-level view, or simply forward to the latest stable 
version (which would be TomEE 8 at the moment).  We could also take a different 
direction with the generic https://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html page and 
have it be kind of a marketing page with fancy graphics to talk about each 
distribution at a high level.  Sort of like the "TomEE Flavors" section of our 
website main page (https://tomee.apache.org) but a more complete page where 
there is kind of an image and description of each distribution.  People can 
then use the more detailed comparison pages for the full list of 40+ 
specifications we support.

Thoughts?


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

> On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:56 AM, Zowalla, Richard 
>  wrote:
> 
> I went ahead and merged the changes by Swell. @Swell: Thank you!!
> Cherry picked them to master (9.x) as well.
> 
> Now the distributions contain the libs specified on the website.
> 
> Gruß
> Richard
> 
> Am Montag, dem 28.03.2022 um 08:18 + schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
>> As we merged the comparision page, we should now tackle: 
>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/828
>> 
>> There was a discussion regarding the original intentions of plume.
>> If we agree, that "Those distributions are supposed to be the same
>> minus the JPA and JSF providers.", then we should go a-head and merge
>> it + port it to master.
>> 
>> Gruß
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> Am Freitag, dem 25.03.2022 um 11:29 +0100 schrieb Swell:
>>> Thanks for your kind feedback.
>>> 
>>> @Richard, I'll gladly change Tomee Plume pom to include BatchEE, PR
>>> :
>>> in
>>> progress with a blocker i can also resolve.
>>> 
>>> @David, about the flavors page, i think your suggestions are
>>> simpler
>>> and
>>> better, applied them on names consistency and added a table of
>>> implementations.
>>> 
>>> what need for this list of implementations ?
>>> * For my students => My usual scenario is that i need to remind
>>> them
>>> of
>>> what is provided by Tomee vs other servers. "they dont need HK2 nor
>>> Jersey
>>> if they have the Plus flavor."
>>> * For the general web site visitors => I wonder if people would
>>> prefer perf
>>> metrics and tck results, rather than comparing what is provided by
>>> Tomee vs
>>> others. provided a web capture just for fun :
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13041580/image-2022-03-25-11-18-14-708.png
>>> 
>>> i still believe the list of implementations is needed to know what
>>> Tomee
>>> provides, but David's suggestion is clearer.
>>> here is the current version of the web page in the PR :
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13041581/image-2022-03-25-11-19-03-406.png
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 06:18, Zowalla, Richard <
>>> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi all,
 
 Thanks for your mail and your work in making the page more clear,
 Swell! Your work is very much appreciated.
 
 
> Total side note to the wider dev list, we really need to get
> JBatch
> into Plume!  Those distributions are supposed to be the same
> minus
> the JPA and JSF pr

[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 merged pull request #832: Regenerated BOMs after dependency upgrades

[GitBox]

rzo1 merged pull request #832:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/832


   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomee.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [tomee] github-actions[bot] opened a new pull request #832: Regenerated BOMs after dependency upgrades

[GitBox]

github-actions[bot] opened a new pull request #832:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/832


   Found some uncommited changes (from BOM regeneration) after running build on 
TomEE master


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomee.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

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
>

Re: TOMEE-3846 flavors comparison page

[Zowalla, Richard]

I went ahead and merged the changes by Swell. @Swell: Thank you!!
Cherry picked them to master (9.x) as well.

Now the distributions contain the libs specified on the website.

Gruß
Richard

Am Montag, dem 28.03.2022 um 08:18 + schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> As we merged the comparision page, we should now tackle: 
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/828
> 
> There was a discussion regarding the original intentions of plume.
> If we agree, that "Those distributions are supposed to be the same
> minus the JPA and JSF providers.", then we should go a-head and merge
> it + port it to master.
> 
> Gruß
> Richard
> 
> 
> Am Freitag, dem 25.03.2022 um 11:29 +0100 schrieb Swell:
> > Thanks for your kind feedback.
> > 
> > @Richard, I'll gladly change Tomee Plume pom to include BatchEE, PR
> > :
> > in
> > progress with a blocker i can also resolve.
> > 
> > @David, about the flavors page, i think your suggestions are
> > simpler
> > and
> > better, applied them on names consistency and added a table of
> > implementations.
> > 
> > what need for this list of implementations ?
> > * For my students => My usual scenario is that i need to remind
> > them
> > of
> > what is provided by Tomee vs other servers. "they dont need HK2 nor
> > Jersey
> > if they have the Plus flavor."
> > * For the general web site visitors => I wonder if people would
> > prefer perf
> > metrics and tck results, rather than comparing what is provided by
> > Tomee vs
> > others. provided a web capture just for fun :
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13041580/image-2022-03-25-11-18-14-708.png
> > 
> > i still believe the list of implementations is needed to know what
> > Tomee
> > provides, but David's suggestion is clearer.
> > here is the current version of the web page in the PR :
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13041581/image-2022-03-25-11-19-03-406.png
> > 
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 06:18, Zowalla, Richard <
> > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your mail and your work in making the page more clear,
> > > Swell! Your work is very much appreciated.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Total side note to the wider dev list, we really need to get
> > > > JBatch
> > > > into Plume!  Those distributions are supposed to be the same
> > > > minus
> > > > the JPA and JSF providers.
> > > 
> > > I created TOMEE-3871 [1] for this one.
> > > 
> > > @Swell Let me know, if you like to provide a PR for master /
> > > tomee-
> > > 8.x
> > > branch to fix it. We can then assign you the Jira :)
> > > 
> > > It basically boils down to adding "batchee-jbatch" (runtime) to
> > > the
> > > "tomee-plume-webapp". The references in the "boms" are then
> > > automatically re-generated, if you conduct a quick build:
> > > 
> > > mvn -U -Pquick -DskipTests -Dsurefire.useFile=false
> > > -DdisableXmlReport=true -DuniqueVersion=false -ff -Dassemble
> > > -DfailIfNoTests=false clean install
> > > 
> > > If you are unsure how to proceed with it, feel free to ask. We
> > > are
> > > happy to help.
> > > 
> > > Gruß
> > > Richard
> > > 
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3871
> > > 
> > > Am Donnerstag, dem 24.03.2022 um 11:48 -0700 schrieb David
> > > Blevins:
> > > > > On Mar 19, 2022, at 2:30 AM, Swell 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regarding Tomee website : one web page mislead me to believe
> > > > > that
> > > > > Tomee Plus
> > > > > includes Tomee Plume, and it made it hard for me to
> > > > > understand
> > > > > why
> > > > > my
> > > > > webapp was not loading.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I believe it could mislead others and its why I wanted to
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > some
> > > > > changes on its content to better show the delta between
> > > > > flavors.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Currently the flavors page does not differentiate between
> > > > > Micro
> > > > > and
> > > > > Web
> > > > > profiles, nor does it tell Plume includes EclipseLink when
> > > > > Plus
> > > > > does not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I took time to write a page I believe could be usefull to
> > > > > Tomee
> > > > > users, a
> > > > > screenshot is linked below, the visitors could benefit from
> > > > > my
> > > > > additional
> > > > > table for synthesis of deltas.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13041318/image-2022-03-18-20-36-25-938.png
> > > > Hi Swell,
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you so much for taking the time to put so much thought
> > > > into
> > > > this work.  We are truly lucky :)
> > > > 
> > > > I love that you included the MicroProfile detail, that was
> > > > definitely
> > > > missing and badly needed.  As the table is quite large already,
> > > > that
> > > > terse summary at the top is a very nice improvement and likely
> > > > to
> > > > help people see the big picture significantly faster.
> > > > 
> > > > In the first table, I like the way you used "Jakarta JSF
> > > > Implementation" and list the implementations by name.  For
> 

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

[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 merged pull request #828: TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[GitBox]

rzo1 merged pull request #828:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/828


   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomee.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [tomee] sultan commented on pull request #828: TOMEE-3871 - TomEE Plume is missing BatchEE / JCS Cache

[GitBox]

sultan commented on pull request #828:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/828#issuecomment-1084176117


   i think i was able to clean up my mess by reverting to my previous draft. 
commits seems legit now. can someone launch checks ?


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomee.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org