Cross-spec coordination / work ?

[Heiko Rupp]

Hey,

[ I was pretty absent the last months, so excuse me if that has been discussed already. In that case please point me to the other thread(s). ]

At the start the specs worked pretty much in isolation, then we started using MP Config in various other places.

Then there was the idea to e.g. expose the outcomes of FaultTolerance via MP-Metrics

Now, triggered by eclipse/microprofile-reactive-messaging#72 I wonder how much we need stronger coordination between

specifications.

Here I have the impression we are in a chicken-egg situation.

[Ken Finnigan]

All coordination between specifications should be defined by the overall Architecture of MicroProfile.

Issues need to be raised as these concerns are discovered so they can be appropriately addressed at that level

--
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/37b6283f-2c12-4b1d-86e3-3e41cc15bde6%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clingan]

+1. In addition, I have to say that there has been cross-spec interoperability, which has been incrementally improving with each released.

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 6:30:50 AM UTC-7, Ken Finnigan wrote:

All coordination between specifications should be defined by the overall Architecture of MicroProfile.

Issues need to be raised as these concerns are discovered so they can be appropriately addressed at that level

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 5:56 AM 'Heiko Rupp' via Eclipse MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hey,

[ I was pretty absent the last months, so excuse me if that has been discussed already. In that case please point me to the other thread(s). ]

At the start the specs worked pretty much in isolation, then we started using MP Config in various other places.

Then there was the idea to e.g. expose the outcomes of FaultTolerance via MP-Metrics

Now, triggered by eclipse/microprofile-reactive-messaging#72 I wonder how much we need stronger coordination between

specifications.

Here I have the impression we are in a chicken-egg situation.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Emily Jiang]

As for the spec integration, most of the time we can solve the issue between the spec workgroups. For instance, MP FT interlocked successfully with MP Metrics to get MP FT integratin with MP Metrics. As for the RM issue you highlighted, it should be solved by RM workgroup. I think Architecture discussion should kick in if there is no agreement after some initial discussion. However, I can't remember why the discussion stopped. I think you have done the right thing, Heiko, to activate the issue. I would like to see this issue is back to discussion.

Thanks

Emily

[Ken Finnigan]

We need a better view of Architecture across the whole of MP and how different specs integrate. For that to happen we don't want smaller groups of specifications going off to figure out how they want to integrate with concern just for their particular specifications. Taking that approach will lead us to a quagmire of intermingled specifications, "hello Java EE".

To date, the Architecture group hasn't tackled these types of issues, so it was good that the individual groups resolved those discussions themselves. However, going forward we need to be more coordinated and ensure we're all aligned with how specifications interact with each other. For that reason, interlocking needs to be dealt with at the Architecture level.

--
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/ed3266b1-9f09-4023-8de9-56cd2a3cd940%40googlegroups.com.

[Heiko Rupp]

Would that include the infamous platform spec to explain such interactions on a platform level. Perhaps not too detailed, but at least to give guidance for all specs how to e.g. metrics integration as cross-cutting concern should work (?)

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

[Ken Finnigan]

Possibly, but I'm considering it being an "Architecture spec" as opposed to a Platform spec

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/5a661cc0-1a75-44ab-b5da-3701dfb38e02%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clingan]

Yeah, we've delayed the platform spec (beyond specifying other specs) discussion temporarily. First it was until the Jakarta heavy lifting was done, and now I think until the working group decision is finalized. There is no hard-lined decision around this, but we think it makes logical sense. We are open to suggestions on restarting the discussion, though.

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

[Ondro Mihályi]

Until we have an integration spec (either a separate Architecture spec or MP umbrella spec) to specify how specs integrate, I think it's worth to discuss how individual spec teams should cooperate so that we have managable outcomes. There are some rules that comes to mind, e.g. having a discussion between both spec teams within Architecture board, decide which spec will cover it by tests, how the spec documents will specify the functionality when the dependent API is and isn't available, etc.

I don't like the idea of a single spec specifying integrations among all specs and I would rather see that there's a main spec for each integration in most cases and a common spec only for cases when there's no evident main spec. However, I admit there may not be a better solution and we need to discuss and try to find the best approach.

Ondro

[Heiko Rupp]

There may be 1:1 cases (imagine a MP-rest-mesaging-bridge), where most probably only the 2 specs need to coordinate (Reactive messaging and Rest-Client).

And then there are things like OpenTracing or Metrics, that can be applied to many other specs. In this  case we either put something in Metics/OT like "every other spec must integrate like this" section

or have that at a more global platform/architecture spec.

Orthogonal to that : in OT spec there is a section "The default is like this ..." which to me implies that it could be overridden. Now all the other specs also need to understand what that means. Perhaps they need to put a section in what it means in their case. Should such a clarification be sprinkled across specs? Or in a central place? And then in which? OT spec could mention it for each other spec. But what about new specs? Would OT spec need an update so that it applies to the new spec?

[Ondro Mihályi]

I think that detailed specification should be in a single place (either in a particular "main" spec or in a separate integration spec) but it should also always be mentioned in each impacted spec with a reference to the detailed specification elsewhere. But again, this should be discussed in Architecture board. I've raised a github issue to track this: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile/issues/170. 

I suggest we continue the discussion on the github issue and then elevate the discussion into a new mailing list thread with the [ARCH] prefix to discuss within the Architecture board.

št 19. 3. 2020 o 9:32 'Heiko Rupp' via Eclipse MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> napísal(a):

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/etXgyc7lYgI/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/ffb7714c-37f7-4ff2-a4ee-5fd065584833%40googlegroups.com.