Skip to first unread message
Kevin Sutter
May 26, 2017, 3:29:17 PM5/26/17
to MicroProfile
Hello Microprofile community,
The review of "MicroProfile 1.1" begins now and runs through Wednesday, June 7. The proposal is available here:
Reviews are an important part of the Microprofile evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the Microprofile mailing list at
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Microprofile. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
- What is your evaluation of the proposal?
- Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Microprofile?
- Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Microprofile?
- If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
- How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
More information about the Microprofile evolution process is available at
https://github.com/microprofile/evolution/blob/master/process.md
Thank you,
Kevin Sutter and the rest of the MicroProfile Team
John D. Ament
May 27, 2017, 12:03:56 PM5/27/17
to MicroProfile
Kevin,
I would like to see this proposal take the next number in sequence, rather than trump the JWT proposal's numbering. The next number would be 7 it seems, but distributed tracing needs a new number so 8 may be safer.
I believe the standard properties can also fit into the release, if there's enough traction from the various vendors on it (so far only Payara and Hammock have given their full support). Its going to come down to supporting upwards of 5 standard properties that I can count from configuration as well as a potential runtime object to retrieve some of this information outside of config.
I do want to share the concerns raised by others that fault tolerance may not make it for 1.1, but it all depends on when 1.1 is. I'd actually like to do the opposite of what you're proposing - say that MP 1.1 is shipping on <DATE> and whatever content is ready a week prior to that is included, its more of an agile approach, fix the duration not the content.
John
Ken Finnigan
May 27, 2017, 9:46:32 PM5/27/17
to John D. Ament, MicroProfile
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, John D. Ament <john.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevin,I would like to see this proposal take the next number in sequence, rather than trump the JWT proposal's numbering. The next number would be 7 it seems, but distributed tracing needs a new number so 8 may be safer.I believe the standard properties can also fit into the release, if there's enough traction from the various vendors on it (so far only Payara and Hammock have given their full support). Its going to come down to supporting upwards of 5 standard properties that I can count from configuration as well as a potential runtime object to retrieve some of this information outside of config.I do want to share the concerns raised by others that fault tolerance may not make it for 1.1, but it all depends on when 1.1 is. I'd actually like to do the opposite of what you're proposing - say that MP 1.1 is shipping on <DATE> and whatever content is ready a week prior to that is included, its more of an agile approach, fix the duration not the content.
About a month ago we had a meeting to discuss roadmap and I raised the problem that we're trying to do agile based on time boxed and feature driven releases, which just isn't possible.
As John mentions, my preference is for time boxed releases and whatever content/features are ready is what's in the release.
I'd prefer we say MP 1.1 goes out 10th June even if that means Config is the only thing ready.
I'd even say it's better to just do MP 1.1 within a week with Config, and then we could even have an MP 1.2 in late June or early July with FT. There's then still time to have an MP 1.3 in late August for JavaOne.
John
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 3:29:17 PM UTC-4, Kevin Sutter wrote:Hello Microprofile community,
The review of "MicroProfile 1.1" begins now and runs through Wednesday, June 7. The proposal is available here:
Reviews are an important part of the Microprofile evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the Microprofile mailing list at
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Microprofile. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
- What is your evaluation of the proposal?
- Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Microprofile?
- Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Microprofile?
- If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
- How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
More information about the Microprofile evolution process is available at
https://github.com/microprofile/evolution/blob/master/process.md
Thank you,
Kevin Sutter and the rest of the MicroProfile Team
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/f03d03a6-34d0-48c2-a3d4-aebc5b96b9b4%40googlegroups.com.
Ondrej Mihályi
May 28, 2017, 2:58:22 AM5/28/17
to MicroProfile, john.d...@gmail.com
Hi,
I'd prefer we say MP 1.1 goes out 10th June even if that means Config is the only thing ready.
+1 to this.
The proposal doesn't mention the agreed timeline which is 2Q and which we agreed is more important than the list of features.
I also commented on the PR with suggestions on what to add to the proposal to fix that.
--Ondrej
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.
Werner Keil
May 29, 2017, 3:48:21 AM5/29/17
to MicroProfile, john.d...@gmail.com
Does this match the review schedule for https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.microprofile/releases/1.0.config ?
Why does it say "1.0.config" which sounds more like a "Service Release" or Bugfix (just did one for UOMo 0.6, they usually don't require a review) and not "1.1"?
Could that be changed to clarify it is meant to be a "1.1" release of the "Umbrella" and not a "1.0.1" fix or service release?
Werner
Kevin Sutter
May 30, 2017, 10:08:28 AM5/30/17
to John D. Ament, MicroProfile
Forgot to copy the group...
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:03 AM, John D. Ament <john.d...@gmail.com> wrote:Kevin,I would like to see this proposal take the next number in sequence, rather than trump the JWT proposal's numbering. The next number would be 7 it seems, but distributed tracing needs a new number so 8 may be safer.
My mistake. I just looked at the proposals in the repo and saw that 0005 was the next one. I'll fix that up immediately.
I believe the standard properties can also fit into the release, if there's enough traction from the various vendors on it (so far only Payara and Hammock have given their full support). Its going to come down to supporting upwards of 5 standard properties that I can count from configuration as well as a potential runtime object to retrieve some of this information outside of config.
If it's ready, I'm open to it. But, this is probably more of a question for the Config exercise and whether it fits into the 1.0 release for Config.
I do want to share the concerns raised by others that fault tolerance may not make it for 1.1, but it all depends on when 1.1 is. I'd actually like to do the opposite of what you're proposing - say that MP 1.1 is shipping on <DATE> and whatever content is ready a week prior to that is included, its more of an agile approach, fix the duration not the content.
I understand the concern and appreciate the suggestion. My issue is whether Config by itself is sufficient for a MP 1.1 release. But, as Ken mentions later in this thread, if we could get on a regular cadence, then maybe it's not that much of a concern. I'll have to follow up with FT to see whether something would be ready or not.Thanks, Kevin
John
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 3:29:17 PM UTC-4, Kevin Sutter wrote:Hello Microprofile community,
The review of "MicroProfile 1.1" begins now and runs through Wednesday, June 7. The proposal is available here:
Reviews are an important part of the Microprofile evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the Microprofile mailing list at
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Microprofile. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
- What is your evaluation of the proposal?
- Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Microprofile?
- Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Microprofile?
- If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
- How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
More information about the Microprofile evolution process is available at
https://github.com/microprofile/evolution/blob/master/process.md
Thank you,
Kevin Sutter and the rest of the MicroProfile Team
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/AFobwjU7z6E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
Kevin Sutter
May 30, 2017, 10:15:52 AM5/30/17
to Ken Finnigan, MicroProfile
Hi Ken,
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Ken Finnigan <k...@kenfinnigan.me> wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, John D. Ament <john.d...@gmail.com> wrote:Kevin,I would like to see this proposal take the next number in sequence, rather than trump the JWT proposal's numbering. The next number would be 7 it seems, but distributed tracing needs a new number so 8 may be safer.I believe the standard properties can also fit into the release, if there's enough traction from the various vendors on it (so far only Payara and Hammock have given their full support). Its going to come down to supporting upwards of 5 standard properties that I can count from configuration as well as a potential runtime object to retrieve some of this information outside of config.I do want to share the concerns raised by others that fault tolerance may not make it for 1.1, but it all depends on when 1.1 is. I'd actually like to do the opposite of what you're proposing - say that MP 1.1 is shipping on <DATE> and whatever content is ready a week prior to that is included, its more of an agile approach, fix the duration not the content.About a month ago we had a meeting to discuss roadmap and I raised the problem that we're trying to do agile based on time boxed and feature driven releases, which just isn't possible.
Much more difficult, I agree.
As John mentions, my preference is for time boxed releases and whatever content/features are ready is what's in the release.I'd prefer we say MP 1.1 goes out 10th June even if that means Config is the only thing ready.
I'd even say it's better to just do MP 1.1 within a week with Config, and then we could even have an MP 1.2 in late June or early July with FT. There's then still time to have an MP 1.3 in late August for JavaOne.
If we could start a regular cadence of deliveries, then this approach would be good. We just need to do *something* to demonstrate movement. Let me push on this idea a bit... Thanks.
Thanks, Kevin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/AFobwjU7z6E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CAKeeVe71UZZYjR1KR-U%2Byh0KRDdeO1hYEUrrwcadgUw_SkrF9A%40mail.gmail.com.
Kevin Sutter
May 30, 2017, 10:17:12 AM5/30/17
to Ondrej Mihályi, MicroProfile
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Ondrej Mihályi <ondrej....@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,I'd prefer we say MP 1.1 goes out 10th June even if that means Config is the only thing ready.+1 to this.The proposal doesn't mention the agreed timeline which is 2Q and which we agreed is more important than the list of features.I also commented on the PR with suggestions on what to add to the proposal to fix that.
Thanks, Ondrej. I'll review the PR and your comments.
Thanks, Kevin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/AFobwjU7z6E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/f0dad961-c0fd-46db-8fb1-7084ed5efc43%40googlegroups.com.
Kevin Sutter
May 30, 2017, 10:23:00 AM5/30/17
to Werner Keil, MicroProfile
Hi Werner,
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Werner Keil <werne...@gmail.com> wrote:
Does this match the review schedule for https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.microprofile/releases/1.0.config ?
Yes and no... If we go with a slightly older date for MP 1.1 (say June 17 or something), then we would line up with the Config release cycles. We need to get these all in sync.
Why does it say "1.0.config" which sounds more like a "Service Release" or Bugfix (just did one for UOMo 0.6, they usually don't require a review) and not "1.1"?Could that be changed to clarify it is meant to be a "1.1" release of the "Umbrella" and not a "1.0.1" fix or service release?
Delivering sub-features within the umbrella Eclipse MicroProfile project is proving a bit difficult. Emily is trying to figure out the release process for Config 1.0 (as part of the MicroProfile project). That's the reason for the unique naming convention. There have been separate discussions and hangouts on this topic.
Each of these sub-features will eventually become part of the MP 1.x deliverables.
Thanks, Kevin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/AFobwjU7z6E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/64ae22ad-b8b1-46f6-adec-2485f90458fd%40googlegroups.com.
Werner Keil
May 30, 2017, 10:27:20 AM5/30/17
to Kevin Sutter, MicroProfile
Guess there may come a point where certain "components" could end up as genuine sub-projects.
Take https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.m2e which both on the umbrella and WTP Support https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.m2e.m2e-wtp gets a lot of contribution by Red Hat, too. So you should have someone to ask when and how it's done.
Werner
Message has been deleted
Kevin Sutter
May 31, 2017, 12:46:30 PM5/31/17
to MicroProfile
Updated the proposal to be more time-boxed rather than feature-driven. Driving for a 2Q2017 release.
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-evolution-process/pull/30
-- Kevin
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-evolution-process/pull/30
-- Kevin
Hi Werner,
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
Ondrej Mihályi
Jun 5, 2017, 5:22:32 AM6/5/17
to MicroProfile
The proposal now looks good to me. It's a no-brainer to me now.
Kevin, if you want to follow a formal process, let's have a vote.
Otherwise, let's just merge it, as it's been already accepted in many channels ;-)
After it's accepted, I would start defining deliverables (formal document, parent BOM, way to announce a release, way to release artifacts, etc.) We already had that discussion with MP 1.0, I'm just not sure if we did everything properly for 1.0
--Ondrej
Kevin Sutter
Jun 5, 2017, 2:39:22 PM6/5/17
to Ondrej Mihályi, MicroProfile
Darn it, forgot to include MicroProfile community again... :-)
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Kevin Sutter <kwsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
KevinThanks,I agree with you that there are several items that we need to do to do a forma 1.1 release.Ondrej,Let's use this as an example of being more open and easier to work (ala Ken's process proposal). Do we really need a vote? I'm just waiting for someone to merge my changes so that I can move forward. I don't think we need a vote.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/c7f0912c-5fa8-460e-b280-f56d1415633e%40googlegroups.com.
Ondrej Mihályi
Jun 6, 2017, 5:00:36 AM6/6/17
to MicroProfile, ondrej....@gmail.com
ANNOUNCEMENT - proposal accepted.
The MicroProfile 1.1 proposal has been accepted.
A new microprofile-bom repository has been requested: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=517831
The content of the older repository under the microprofile organization will be moved to the new repository once IP is sorted out.
--Ondro
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages