ConfigJSR and MicroProfile Config

[Emily Jiang]

Just a quick update on ConfigJSR. We have all community channels and github set up. We have started weekly meeting to discuss new features. The current codebase of Config JSR is same as Config 1.1. We are adding more features, such as more builtin converters, dynamics.

To move forward, we have two paths to consider:

1. Config JSR goes off to do its own thing while MP Config might eventually discontinued.

2. Any new features discussed in Config JSR should be added to MP Config. The only difference is the package name. In this way, MP Config always syncs up with Config JSR and MP Config might have more features than Config JSR. MP Config serves exactly like a prototype for standards like Config JSR.

Thoughts?
Emily

[Alasdair Nottingham]

I think it would be good if they were kept broadly in sync. If the intent is to standardize MP config I think it would be a shame if they ended up divergent and would make it hard for MP config to help drive future versions of the spec

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/24af44f8-6565-4178-91d2-d0d7eacb3e21%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Emily Jiang]

+1 on Alasdair! That exactly matches my view. What about others? We want to get this right as I see Config JSR will set an example for future spec as well.

Emily

[Arthur De Magalhaes]

I also agree with keeping them in sync.  I think it's important to have an easy on-ramp from MP into JSR, so keeping the application change mainly mechanical (ie: changing package names) is a nice thing to have.  

- Arthur