MicroProfile Roadmap details and request for comment

[John Clingan]

Just an FYI to the community, we discussed the MicroProfile 2.1 (and by implication, MicroProfile 2.2). Here is what we have scoped so far.

MicroProfile 2.1 (target Oct 9 or even Oct 1st)

• Config 1.4 (likely)
  
• Reactive Operator Spec (based on Live Hangout vote)
  
• OpenTracing 1.2
  

Specification teams, feel free to provide corrections. Backtracking from EclipseCon Europe/CodeOne/Reactive Summit (week of Oct 22), I'd like to deliver a specification release by October 8 at the latest (to allow for slippage and time to actually do the release itself). That means we need to have a pretty solid set of contents by a minimum of Sep 9th, although I'd like to aim for a defined release by Sep 1st and  to do the release the 1st week of October.  Why be more aggressive? I'd like to pull it in to put some distance between the 2.1 and 2.2 releases, but need feedback on ability for MP 2.1 specs to release that early (milestone/candidate releases?).

I'd like to recommend an "arbitrary" date for MicroProfile 2.2 for Dec 15th, which would keep our "quarterly release schedule" on track.

MicroProfile 2.2 candidate specifications (Dec 15th)

• Fault Tolerance 1.2
  
• Metrics 1.1
  
• Health Check 1.1
  
• Reactive Messaging 1.0
  

If we have a formal process defined and ready for voting in new specifications by MicroProfile 2.2, it makes sense to apply that process to the Reactive Messaging 1.0 spec.

Of course, all of this is subject to community feedback but I wanted to get the ball rolling.

Thanks!

[Emily Jiang]

I have one comment on the formal release on Reactive Operator Spec in MP 2.1.  I think when you voted for this I was briefly absent from the call.

As we discussed in another thread, Reactive Operator was created for Messaging. If Messaging is not ready, we need to demonstrate whether this is value to release it. How can an end user use it in MicroProfile scenario? I think Clement has the action to provide use cases to demonstrate how to use this spec without messaging. I think he is working on it based on the Reactive weekly we had yesterday.  We should make decision based on what Clement will demonstrate.



Thanks
Emily

[Alasdair Nottingham]

I wasn’t on the call but the impression I had from the mail list was that since this spec was reactive plunking an end user wouldn’t use that it should wait until there was an exploiting spec. 

Alasdair Nottingham

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0d1d9079-980d-4a3c-8fd1-471dec27851d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Emily Jiang]

+1! I was surprised it was voted in.

Thanks
Emily

[Gosling Von]

Hi John,

Where could I found the reactive messaging discussion? I am willing to contribute to here :-）

Best Regards,
Von Gosling

在 2018年8月22日星期三 UTC+8下午2:42:16，John Clingan写道：

[John Clingan]

Gosling, I'm sure the Reactive group would love to have you!

James Roper is leading the group, but going on PTO soon. Clement Escoffier is very active as well.

There are various threads you may want to review here in the google group. Here are some additional resources:

Reactive Group Meeting Minutes:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UKBBNFn-CeMih3lNUGvpShcL2aTpnvmJs9LQ8qT9OI0/edit#heading=h.fxuxgie5kktv

Reactive Streams:

https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-reactive-streams

Reactive Messaging:

https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-reactive-messaging

[John Clingan]

On the call, we (broad representation) felt there was value in releasing it because it is ready and has the marketing value of MicroProfile entering the world of reactive development. This may spark the interest of others who may join MicroProfile given its entrance into the "reactive world". There was IBM representation on the call, although I realize that one individual may not represent an entire organization.

My recommendation is to actively participate on the governance thread as we try to figure out the process for including new specifications going forward.