Time to update the MicroProfile mission statement?

[John Clingan]

Way back in the dark ages of the internet (early last year), we defined the MicroProfile mission statement as:

"An open forum to optimize Enterprise Java for a microservices architecture by innovating across multiple implementations and collaborating on common areas of interest with a goal of standardization."

Perhaps I am over-thinking this, but everything is correct up until "with a goal of standardization". We defined the mission statement when the goal was to have specs reach a point in maturity where they could be submitted as JSRs via the JCP, as we did with the Config JSR.  Since then, Java EE has begin its move to Jakarta EE in the Eclipse Foundation. I'm definitely not intending to make a controversial statement here, but the Eclipse Foundation is not a standards organization and I don't believe it intends to present itself that way even in the case of Jakarta EE. So, unless I am incorrect in my statement, I'd like to propose we change "... with a goal of standardization" to "... something else."

Here is a first cut intended to lay down some ideas in spirit of discussion:

"... with a goal of defining specifications that result in multiple implementations".

Other ideas I wanted to throw in there were "accelerate adoption of an ecosystem", "reduce risk through multiple implementations", yada, yada. However, it gets real wordy real quick :-)

[Mark Struberg]

What a 'standard' is is only defined by the perception and the stability of the API.

There are projects calling itself 'standard' but largely getting ignored by the majority of folks.

And then there are projects which set a mark but fail to get support from multiple vendors. 

For me personally a 'standard' means to have a very stable and well discussed API plus multiple vendors backing it. 

I agree that for MicroProfile the majority decided that we should not aim to become a standard.

Now if Eclipse doesn't want JakartaEE to become a 'standard' with at least the level of acceptance than JavaEE had, then it's imo not worth the whole effort.

So please let me ask: Is this just your interpretation or is this an official message from some JakartaEE community representative?

Or did I simply get this wrong?

txs and LieGrue,

strub

[m.reza.rahman]

I agree it is concerning to hear Eclipse folks to not want to regard Jakarta EE a standard. If so, why is that the case?

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

--
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/dcf62cea-a8b2-4f81-9e26-66f02da6494e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Guillermo González de Agüero]

Jakarta EE WG has a Specifications commitee and Eclipse is already working on getting a kind of JCP that can can act as a standards body for any project, not only EE4J.

One can argue JCP was never really a standards body and in that sense, I don't think Eclipse will change the situation. But other than that, I think we can safely asume we'll keep the "standards" target at least on Jakarta EE.

I personally hope MicroProfile keeps aiming to  "graduatee" projects moving them to Jakarta EE in the same way Config was ported to the JCP.

--
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/e40a7d35-b685-47dd-b105-a1b86865fed2%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Little]

I think what John means is that the Eclipse Foundation is not a recognised standards body such as OASIS, W3C, OMG, IETF or the JCP. When we wrote the original mission statement and included the word “standard” it was with an implicit nod to those official standards bodies. Now whilst we are certainly adding processes and rules to the Jakarta EE effort to allow us to innovate and evolve the existing and new specifications, I doubt the Eclipse Foundation would consider itself a standards body alongside those others any more than, say, the Apache Software Foundation might. That’s not necessarily a bad thing either. It potentially allows us to decide at some later date to take a specification to, say, the IETF if we thought that was more the more appropriate standards body.

Mark.

--
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/dcf62cea-a8b2-4f81-9e26-66f02da6494e%40googlegroups.com.

[Guillermo González de Agüero]

Thanks Mark, that makes sense. I think we (at least me) were confusing standards and specs. The aim is to create specs, but specs doesnt necessarily mean standards.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/41C07458-F39A-4E4E-85DD-1FB6E31C0051%40gmail.com.

[Mark Little]

Agreed. There can be de facto standards and implementations but as a group we should try to ensure we are consistent with industry usage.

Mark.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAG1ZpUZpRk0qyE4wBVT%2B8ebzJ%2B9caiKqmMmBE%3DuUhePm67dqdw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andy Guibert]

As others have pointed out, the MP community creates specs, and if they are successful then they become a [de facto] standard.  Unless an API has prior credibility, it cannot claim to be a "standard" out of the gate (relevant XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/927/). Therefore, I think the "goal of standardization" wording is fitting, because it implies the goal is to produce software that is widely accepted and adopted. 

[Ondro Mihályi]

I think that are goal of targeting standardization still applies. It doesn't say where our efforts stop, it may be that MP spec ending as a Jakarta EE spec is enough, but we amy also aspire on standardizing the API at a proper standards body. Config JSR is still happenning and JCP still works, so we may submit a spec for JCP regardless of Jakarta EE.

It seems, John, that what you're suggesting is that bringing specs to Jakarta EE became our goal, which I don't agree. I thing that the goal of standardization remains and Jakarta EE is only part of it.

Though, we may mention JakartaEE somewhere in the vision.

--Ondro

[Mark Little]

+1

--
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+unsubscribe@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/3ebf8b40-faa0-41e7-8fe9-c5b3459dcdfe%40googlegroups.com.