Bootstrapping Proposals for Technical Alignment discussion

[David Blevins]

Hi All,

I'm unfortunately not going to be able to join everyone Tuesday for the discussion technical alignment between MicroProfile and Jakarta EE. I have a speaking slot at a Sonatype event right on top of the same hour.

As I don't want to be the guy throwing a bomb on the discussion the week after, I've done my best to try and contribute some structure to the conversation we can hopefully use to get somewhere meaningful quickly.

My hope is everyone can read these before the meeting and make them part of the discussion & fill them out further afterwards:


Overview to frame-up the discussion:

- https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/blob/71db5e6cc710ef8d4968195527af13b4f1207077/proposals/techical-alignment/README.adoc


Rough proposals (more conversation starters):

- https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/blob/71db5e6cc710ef8d4968195527af13b4f1207077/proposals/techical-alignment/proposal-microprofile-becomes-standards-initiative.adoc

- https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/blob/71db5e6cc710ef8d4968195527af13b4f1207077/proposals/techical-alignment/proposal-specifications-graduation-to-jakarta.adoc


All these are in this PR which can hopefully get merged prior to the meeting so others can build on it and propose other visions:

- https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/pull/79


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

[Tanja Obradovic]

+ jakarta.ee...@eclipse.org

Extending the email to Jakarta EE community also.

Thanks,

Tanja

--

Tanja Obradovic

Jakarta EE Program Manager | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Twitter: @TanjaEclipse

Eclipse Foundation: The Platform for Open Innovation and Collaboration

[Emily Jiang]

During last week's Jakarta and MicroProfile alignment meeting, I brought up the LTS proposal for MP. I put more thoughts here for further discussion.

# MicroProfile Release Standards under LTS

Under this proposal, MicroProfile adopts Java Release model by introducing LTS.

 - API classes remain in `org.eclipse.microprofile`
 - Once a specification has done a few releases and the functionalities deemed to be stable, this specification can do a LTS.
 - The TLS specification should not break the backward compatbility.
 - The release cycle of releasing LTS can be 1.5 or 2 years in order for the features to be thoroughly tested.

 - The release from previous LTS and the next LTS can introduce new functionalities and then later update or remove the functionalities.

To start with, we can try out this model first on the specifications that Jakarta EE needs to adopt. I propose to make MP Config to be the guinea pig of this.

Thoughts?

Emily

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 7:32:42 PM UTC, Tanja Obradovic wrote:

+ jakarta.e...@eclipse.org

[Ken Finnigan]

Some variations on that idea that could be interesting are that the MP platform releases actually become an LTS platform releasing only once a year, or maybe once every 12-24 months.

Individual specifications could release as frequently as they wanted, do breaking changes when they needed, but when it came time for an LTS platform release each specification would need to commit to fixing issues in a specific release for that LTS period. They could still continue to innovate with breaking change versions of the spec, while still resolving issues in the LTS branch of the spec and doing releases as needed.

With respect to MP Config being a guinea pig, with the discussions that have occurred over the past few weeks, I think Config still has work to do before it could commit to an LTS of any kind.

Ken

--
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/9b0c54d4-c959-434f-9de7-c28324a5f12d%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clingan]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit this week, considering creating a slide deck to visualize and we can all adjust. Until Jakarta EE starts to hit a cadence, though, it's hard to understand the alignment/impact between the two. I like the idea of a trial run.

I'd think Config is pretty stable, but you tell me, LOL. Can the next version of config, aligned with MicroProfile 4.0, be an LTS release?

[John Clingan]

If not config, do you think there is another API that is stable enough to use as a guinea pig? I do like the guinea pig idea in general.

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

[Ken Finnigan]

Config 2.0 in June could be an LTS candidate, provided the major sticking points are able to be resolved for that release.

Are you thinking of an MP LTS platform release for Jakarta EE that just has Config in it as a guinea pig?

--

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/ca22c5e4-c5a3-427a-9c6f-81acfdcd3a9d%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clingan]

No, just the Config spec. The reason I like the Config spec is that some Jakarta specs want to leverage it. Try it out for a Jakarta release or two, make adjustments as needed, and expand if deemed successful.

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

[John Clingan]

I meant to say “jakarta release or two” (if not more). It’s a cadence alignment adjustment we need to get a feel for.

On Feb 4, 2020, at 9:05 AM, John Clingan <jcli...@redhat.com> wrote:

No, just the Config spec. The reason I like the Config spec is that some Jakarta specs want to leverage it. Try it out for a Jakarta release, make adjustments as needed, and expand if deemed successful.

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/294dd45d-14c9-4658-bcb8-d74a96df6ccf%40googlegroups.com.

[Erik Mattheis]

I think the LTS concept is a bit premature in light of the Jakarta EE alignment issue. From my personal perspective, users who are keen to see MicroProfile properly supported under Jakarta EE in some fashion are the same users who would appreciate the stability of a LTS release. As such, the MicroProfile features adopted by Jakarta EE could very well serve as a de facto LTS platform.

That being said, LTS is really about vendor support. There is nothing stopping an implementor from committing to varying levels of support for various versions of MicroProfile (the platform or individual specifications) today. Having the concept of LTS versions beyond the basic semantic versioning guidelines at the specification level seems unnecessary.

— 

Erik

On Feb 4, 2020, at 12:08 PM, John Clingan <jcli...@redhat.com> wrote:

I meant to say “jakarta release or two” (if not more). It’s a cadence alignment adjustment we need to get a feel for.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/4B0192AE-C5BD-4DBB-B23E-F3AD782A5A33%40redhat.com.

[Steve Millidge]

I added another proposal here https://blog.payara.fish/microprofile-and-jakarta-ee-technical-alignment I can add to a PR.