Postponed adoption of Jakarta EE 8 dependencies

[Edwin Derks]

Dear MicroProfile community,

As you may know, MicroProfile is partially based on Java EE 8 specifications, borrowing the CDI, JSON-P, JSON-B and JAX-RS specifications. Since early September 2019, Java EE has been superseded by Jakarta EE 8. This is essentially the Java EE 8 framework migrated to the Eclipse Foundation, maintaining byte-level compatibility with Java EE 8.

Therefore, in the past several bi-weekly MP Community Hangout calls, plans have been discussed to adopt the Jakarta EE 8 specifications into MicroProfile. This means that we are replacing the Java EE 8 specifications with their byte-level compatible Jakarta EE 8 counterparts. This adoption should become part of the MicroProfile 3.3 release in February 2020.

However, discussions have been going on in the meantime, where we found out that this adoption has more impact than we initially anticipated. Therefore, adopting the Jakarta EE 8 specifications will not become part of the MicroProfile 3.3 release, but postponed to the MicroProfile 4.0 release in June 2020.

In the meantime, we will continue to discuss and work out the exact details to what has to be done in order to properly adopt the Jakarta EE specifications in MicroProfile 4.0.

If you would like to know more about this:

- please join the bi-weekly MP Community Hangout calls and/or

- read the notes from these here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16v3jVkcDzVz9BVU5aGEzPVbK-a8BIx7S1gbqToVUaLs/edit#heading=h.11g7t3tdq542 and/or

- read the (associated) threads on the MicroProfile Google Groups

Kind regards,

Edwin Derks

[Kevin Sutter]

Yes, we did discuss this on the Community Call.  But, I still think there's some wiggle room for an alternative here...  After our meeting on Tuesday, I posted the idea that if users of MicroProfile follow our documented approach of specifying the "provided" scope for the MP platform dependency, then we have no problem.  Ken and Martin have posted a couple of scenarios that could break if we go this route, but I argue that these are edge cases.

I don't mean to hijack this thread.  Continued discussion on the alternate approach would be best suited on the other thread.  I just didn't want Edwin's post to come across like it's the "final answer".

-- Kevin

[Ken Finnigan]

My preference is postponing, as I know many users don't "follow directions" and we'd be opening a door for a whole lot of issues with our users.

Would it be great if MP 3.3 could be Jakarta EE 8 based, totally?

Is it worth the downsides? I don't believe it is.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/9e3642c8-b12b-4000-bff8-860c5af25650%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clingan]

Let's give it until Tuesday. If we don't have consensus on Kevin's approach, I'd like to move forward with what was agreed upon in the Live Hangout.  BTW Kevin, I appreciate the effort to find a solution because I'd also like to move to Jakarta-based specs! However, we need to commit to a decision soon.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.