There should always be two level of certification

[Scott Stark]

On yesterday's call about certification, in my mind we touched on the solution and then backed away

TLDR; if you want some guarantee with respect to MP APIs you choose a runtime with MP certification. If you also want some guarantee with respect to some level of EE APIs you choose a runtime that has both MP and Jakarta certification.

We should be looking to maximize the environments where an MP runtime can be certified as compatible. We should be looking to enable all levels of cloud related environments from serverless, to IoT edge devices, to mobile devices. In additional to be unlikely Jakarta compatible environments, these are also unlikely to have a fully certified Java SE runtime compatible environment. That is of course another level of certification that should not be a requirement to be MP compatible.

Any expectation of what level of Jakarta API usage that is required in MP has to be codified in the MP TCKs. There is no need to qualify that requirement in anyway other than a certifiable test.

Jakarta can continue to expand its profiles to expand the range of runtimes that can be certified as both MP and Jakarta compatible, but really is something that Jakarta should be doing for its own sake, not for MPs.

[Mark Little]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

On 21 Apr 2021, at 14:21, Scott Stark <sst...@redhat.com> wrote:

On yesterday's call about certification, in my mind we touched on the solution and then backed away

--
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...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/7cf3433c-2974-412e-8fba-375a24ca9500n%40googlegroups.com.

[Emily Jiang]

+1! For more info, here is the proposal for the two level of certifications.

I think in this way, the runtimes can claim the relevant level of certification so that end users will be clear with the functional support on the runtime they use.

Thanks

Emily

[David Blevins]

Not entirely sure what's being said. There were two schools of thought on the call and I understood we started with A, but settled on B:

A) We would create two MicroProfile branded certification logos and levels. One certification program would be for implementations that pass just the MicroProfile TCK tests, the other for implementations that pass the MicroProfile TCK tests and the Jakarta EE component TCK tests. The suggestion was something like "MicroProfile Certified" and "MicroProfile Full Certified". This would mean there'd be three compatible logos in our larger ecosystem: MicroProfile Certified, MicroProfile Full Certified, Jakarta EE Certified. In practice we'd likely have Quarkus using MicroProfile Certified, Helidon using MicroProfile Full Certified and everyone else using both MicroProfile Full Certified & Jakarta EE Certified. Users would need to sort out what all these levels mean.

B) We would create one MicroProfile branded certification logo and level. The one and only one level would be for implementations that pass just the MicroProfile TCK tests. This would mean there'd be two compatible logos in our larger ecosystem: MicroProfile Certified, Jakarta EE Certified. In practice we'd likely have Quarkus and Helidon using MicroProfile Certified and everyone else using both MicroProfile Full Certified & Jakarta EE Certified. Users who want greater compliance would pick a product with both certifications.

B.next) Part of the conversation on B was in the future we could move towards expanding our testing requirements in some way; either get Jakarta to create profiles that define exactly what we need, or we ourselves define our own list of tests from the Jakarta EE component TCKs that should be passed.

Are you advocating A or B or something else? It sounds like B, but I can see how it can be interpreted as A.


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

[Scott Stark]

It is B, but there really is no B.next on the MP side. 

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/KjBE1Rk_NHI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/52303828-6C5D-4C2C-91AA-37E9A2A1213A%40tomitribe.com.