1.2 spec roadmap

[Mike Croft]

Starting a new thread on this after this comment from John:

"We also want to release MicroProfile 1.2 prior to JavaOne, therefore putting some "temporal space" between the two releases. We can go into JavaOne with two releases behind us"

"Prior to JavaOne" would be a (late) September release, at the latest. That means a maximum of 2 months to get the spec implemented and released by vendors. As far as I'm aware, we still haven't formally decided on what will be in 1.2 yet and the last discussion we had was Kevin's roadmap thread back at the start of May.

Given that that roadmap still had Fault Tolerance 1.0 slated for a release at the end of May/early June, it seems like that needs to be revisited.

In that presentation, the MP 1.2 proposal was:

• Fault Tolerance 1.1 with (Hystrix) Dashboard
  
• Security (JWT propagation)
• Health Check
• Metrics
• OpenTracing (new, stretch goal)

Looking at the current status of these, I think we will struggle to meet the JavaOne deadline here. Some of those might get "feature complete" in time but, as we saw with Config 1.0, there is a lot more to happen before it's actually "releasable" - e.g. IP reviews, spec writeups, release candidates etc.

As I see things, there are a couple of ways forward:

1. Reduce the scope drastically, maybe just to Fault Tolerance, so that we can make a JavaOne release
2. Reduce the scope moderately so that we miss JavaOne for a *formal* release, but prepare a SNAPSHOT/preview of the 1.2 specs for demo purposes

I'm not sure which of these would be best because I haven't seen a status from the specs involved. Fault Tolerance, Health Checks and JWT all seem quite active. I think (rightly or wrongly) that any spec that wants to go for an October release will need to be done by the end of August to give time for IP reviews and release candidate reviews to be completed, giving us the same ~1 month that Config took. Is that achievable for these specs?

The call on Tuesday did not mention the status of these, so I would suggest we should try to have a 1.2 status call, focused on the technical requirements for the 1.2 release, with an objective of deciding exactly what goes in to 1.2 and when the release date should be.

[Ondro Mihályi]

This is really an important issue.

+1 to the 1.2 status call

I also suggest that people working on MP features report a short status in this thread or at least post a link to meeting minutes with updated information.

In order to meet our expectations from JavaOne we need to know the current status and plan accordingly. I agree with Mike that any spec that wants to meet the JavaOne deadline needs to be finalized by end of August and release a candidate release by then. 

I know from releasing the Config feature that getting all IP stuff, reviews and build configuration sorted takes a few weeks. After more than a month, we've just finalized the 1.0 release of MP Configuration and deployed artifacts to Maven Central and we still need to release MP 1.1, which still hasn't released any release candidate. Although I hope that other features can learn from our experience, things will definitely take more time than people think.

--Ondro

[sst...@redhat.com]

The MP JWT RBAC meeting notes can be found at:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13nIVDJ6uxen7d57rxyARX8-vqsf3HTvC6hHnhitGZ0w

I expect that we will agree on the API in tomorrow's call and that spec and TCK will be complete by the end of August.

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 3:24:49 AM UTC-7, Mike Croft wrote:

Starting a new thread on this after this comment from John:

"We also want to release MicroProfile 1.2 prior to JavaOne, therefore putting some "temporal space" between the two releases. We can go into JavaOne with two releases behind us"

...

[Alasdair Nottingham]

I agree with the end of August goal for being final. I hope we can do more than one thing in 1.2, but the date should be the most important thing. 

Alasdair Nottingham

--
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/dd7a4f84-61d6-4af3-a3d7-b11fe509f1fa%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mark Little]

+1

[Emily Jiang]

I expect to start the release process for Fault Tolerance towards the end of August. 

Emily

[John D. Ament]

Mike,

I just threw out there a potential need for MP Config 1.1.  If that works, I'd like to plan to include it in MP 1.2.

John

[John Clingan]

I wanted to make the JWT call, but had a schedule conflict. Was there agreement on the spec? Or am I reading the wrong thread?:-)

[John Clingan]

Emily, have you chatted with the IBM Istio team to understand the impact of Istio circuit breaking functionality on FT? It would be good to heave clear positioning between circuit breaking in the service mesh vs application-level circuit breaking. I grok that not everyone will be running on a service mesh, but it would be good to have clear positioning for those running on a service mesh (potentially IBM and Red Hat customers and perhaps other MP users/vendors). Also, is there a potential for hooks between the two? If there are, we should be aware even if Istio is a bit further down the road.

[Emily Jiang]

Hi John,

Please see the FT Istio Ecosystem issue , which should fix the integration between Istio and FT. The configuration and issue will documented shortly.

Emily

[Kevin Sutter]

Thanks, @Mike, for creating this separate thread for 1.2 content.  I agree that we need to stick with our date driven approach.  But, even with that, are we driving for full completion of MP 1.2?  Which means that all of the corresponding components (FT, JWT, Health Check, etc) would all need to be completed well before that to allow for proper vetting of the MP 1.2 release.  As everyone has pointed out, this is going to be difficult.  But, we still have to drive towards something.

I agree that we need to have a "1.2 status call", but that would really mean that we need reps from everyone of the MP components to participate -- which might be very difficult to organize.  As Ondro requested, maybe we can start with a status post from every one of the components?  You can post here or via your team's wiki, but we need to know where each component sits and whether the end of August is doable.  Here's who I would request status from...  Did I miss any?

Fault Tolerance 1.0 - Emily
JWT 1.0 - Scott
Health Check 1.0 - Heiko B
Health Metrics 1.0 - Heiko R
Open Tracing 1.0 - Steve
Open API 1.0 - Arthur
Config 1.1 - Emily

Another idea would be to go the MicroProfile 2.x route and update MicroProfile 1.x with the updated Java EE specs (along with JSON-B 1.0).  This would be another way to demonstrate progress at JavaOne.

Thanks, Kevin

[John Clingan]

I would like to reserve a no more than ~3 minute time slot for each specification team to give a status update on the next general MicroProfile Live Hangout. Can each team create a one-slider (google slides) status with:

1) Scope of feature

2) Status of feature (done, to-do)

3) Target release time frame (and MicroProfile release)

This next call is going to be hopefully a very big call, and it would be great to see each team present a status and show a potentially wide audience the amount of work that we are doing.

Cesar (cc'd) and I can pull the slides together into a single deck for the hangout.

[John D. Ament]

Kevin,

I'm curious, how were these names decided?  And how is the information being captured?

John

[Arthur De Magalhaes]

Hey Kevin,

For the  MP OpenAPI spec, the status is:

- OpenAPI v3 specification is now official:  https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md

- We (IBM) are working with SmartBear and the open source community on issues related to the Java models / annotations / programming interfaces of v3, which can be viewed in this link:  https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%223.0+spec+support%22

Is there a checkpoint / list of items (samples, TCK, documentation) that must happen before a MP spec is considered final?  That will help us gage whether this is a target for 1.2 or 1.3.

Thanks,

Arthur