How to claim compliance for MP specs

[Emily Jiang]

Last week, Kevin, Heiko and I briefly discussed on the MP release compliance. At the moment, there is no evidence or it is unclear how many application servers or runtime fully implemented the MP 1.2 releases or individual specification.

Should we add such info in microprofile.io or somewhere safe for logging this info. Also, do we need the implementors to upload the tck final summary or we trust them?

Thoughts?
Emily

[Arjan Tijms]

Hi,

What about something like a CI based test system like Java EE samples uses?

See e.g. the Travis result for Payara: https://travis-ci.org/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples

In that setup, the different servers to be tested are defined such as shown here: https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L327

And from this a result table can be generated such as shown here: http://arjan-tijms.omnifaces.org/2016/12/the-state-of-portable-authentication-in.html

Basically what each implementation has to do is add an Arquillian based profile and a location where the implementation can be fetched from to the main pom file. This can be done via a simple PR.

After having run, a party can then request the "official" result table to be re-generated (a snapshot one could theoretically be auto generated).

Most of the moving parts to do this this way are already there really.

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

[Werner Keil]

Hate to repeat myself, but we also did that for JSR 363 against multiple implementations

The RI:

https://72-41443578-gh.circle-artifacts.com/0/tmp/circle-junit.Pn5GVpj/tck-results.txt

Or the "Micro" Implementation using the TCK "Format" Profile

https://73-41443578-gh.circle-artifacts.com/0/tmp/circle-junit.3hcqkaJ/tck-results.txt

I would hope to see something along those lines for MicroProfile. Defining some kind of "Profile" or "Feature Set" looks very much needed, as not all implementations and apps may use everything, so being "compatible" should also work if you only use Config and Health Check or Metrics plus Failover...

Werner

[John D. Ament]

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-4, Emily Jiang wrote:

Last week, Kevin, Heiko and I briefly discussed on the MP release compliance. At the moment, there is no evidence or it is unclear how many application servers or runtime fully implemented the MP 1.2 releases or individual specification.

This is a completely unfounded statement.  Perhaps for certain vendors, it is correct, however we have public CI for Apache projects that can claim certification:

Geronimo Config

Geronimo Safeguard - List of tests disabled in Safeguard (has not claimed compliance yet for Fault Tolerance)

[Werner Keil]

Is there a link to these CI build/test results?

[Lilian BENOIT]

If this information exist for certain vendors, it can be difficult to found it.
insert a link to these CI build/test results in microprofile.io site can be a good idea.

[Emily Jiang]

John,

The message is not directing to any particular vendors. You can speak for Geronimo Config or Safeguard. The point is to get an overall picture on how many vendors have implemented which specs. Sometimes announcing on twitter or mailinglist can easily get lost in the mist. We need somewhere to capture the info.

Emily

[John D. Ament]

Emily,

Your statement was that there is no evidence.

John

[Alasdair Nottingham]

Her statement was there was no evidence, or the evidence was unclear. If I interpret her point to be that there isn’t a central place that lists compliant implementations then this thread doesn’t dispute that. Did I misunderstand?

Alasdair

--
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/b0028046-7efc-41e0-b6a7-ef8baae8edd4%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[arjan tijms]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:17 AM, 'Emily Jiang' via Eclipse MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

John,

The message is not directing to any particular vendors. You can speak for Geronimo Config or Safeguard. The point is to get an overall picture on how many vendors have implemented which specs. Sometimes announcing on twitter or mailinglist can easily get lost in the mist. We need somewhere to capture the info.

My preference would still be a central testing server where parties in some way submit their implementation to. The above mentioned method by doing a PR to a pom.xml file is one way of submitting, but there may be other options to consider.

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

 

Emily

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 8:23:12 PM UTC, John D. Ament wrote:

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-4, Emily Jiang wrote:

Last week, Kevin, Heiko and I briefly discussed on the MP release compliance. At the moment, there is no evidence or it is unclear how many application servers or runtime fully implemented the MP 1.2 releases or individual specification.

This is a completely unfounded statement.  Perhaps for certain vendors, it is correct, however we have public CI for Apache projects that can claim certification:

Geronimo Config

Geronimo Safeguard - List of tests disabled in Safeguard (has not claimed compliance yet for Fault Tolerance)

 

Should we add such info in microprofile.io or somewhere safe for logging this info. Also, do we need the implementors to upload the tck final summary or we trust them?

Thoughts?
Emily

--
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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@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/301be06d-092c-4193-933c-adb18ced2d3e%40googlegroups.com.

[Emily Jiang]

Your statement was that there is no evidence.

Where is evidence for the overall picture? Perhaps you have all the evidence, which I did not observe. Please fill in the following gaps to education the ones who were unclear like myself together with all the evidence you have. By the way, let me reiterate I am not talking about any particular runtime but an overall picture. If you just put the list of implementation names such as Geronimo Config, Wildfly, it will be fine. We can then store somewhere.

1. MP Config
Implementations passed TCK:

Implementations on the progress:


Implementations to be started

2. MP Fault Tolerance

Implementations passed TCK:

Implementations on the progress:


Implementations to be started

3. MP Metrics

Implementations passed TCK:

Implementations on the progress:


Implementations to be started

4. MP JWT

Implementations passed TCK:

Implementations on the progress:


Implementations to be started

5. MP Health Check:
Implementations passed TCK:

Implementations on the progress:


Implementations to be started

Thanks

[Arthur De Magalhaes]

+1 Emily.   I think a list like that would be very helpful.

- Arthur

[Werner Keil]

That's a good point.

For my part other than joining the Config JSR EG I was more involved in Health or Metrics lately. And especially for MP Health it seems, there is just one implementation so far under Wildfly. I tried to use it in MP Sample to upgrade my earlier Health demos for events like DWX but at least in Wildfly 10.x I could not get it to work. The standalone "simple" Health example provided there worked for its own rest endpoint, but the /health endpoint does not seem to work in WF10 either. Maybe it requires 11 or Swarm, not sure, but especially the readme and documentation is also more than one room for improvement.

I heard several exist but did not try them yet for Metrics. Where I plan to explore using the UoM ecosystem or  do this under Parfait via a MicroProfile support bridge (similar to https://github.com/performancecopilot/parfait/tree/master/parfait-dropwizard for Dropwizard)

Werner

[Ken Finnigan]

Werner,

WildFly is not an Eclipse MicroProfile implementation, only WildFly Swarm is.

If you're trying to use Eclipse MicroProfile pieces, it needs to be with WildFly Swarm unless it explicitly says it can be used in WildFly directly. At the moment I think config is the only one that falls into that category.

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+unsubscribe@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/545b1570-6af9-4224-bb68-7468a7202924%40googlegroups.com.

[Emily Jiang]

Werner,

>>And especially for MP Health it seems, there is just one implementation so far under Wildfly.

OpenLiberty (https://openliberty.io/) and WebSphere Liberty (https://developer.ibm.com/wasdev/) has the full implementation of MP 1.2. I thought everyone knows about this. Clearly not!

The more we talk, the more I think it is very important to gather the info I listed.

Emily

--
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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@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/545b1570-6af9-4224-bb68-7468a7202924%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thanks
Emily
=================
Emily Jiang
eji...@apache.org

[Arjan Tijms]

Hi Emily,

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 4:09:11 PM UTC+1, Emily Jiang wrote:

The more we talk, the more I think it is very important to gather the info I listed.

I think so too, but what are your thoughts about the CI / submission server I proposed? That would automatically centralise this information and also makes it abundantly clear which exact artefact was tested.

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

 

Emily

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/545b1570-6af9-4224-bb68-7468a7202924%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Werner Keil]

All,

I guess pages similar to what the JCP does for some JSRs (e.g. 107)

https://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/implementations/jsr107/index.html

would be useful. Including links where a vendor can point too e.g. the TCK results live or at least in a document.

I referred and looked primarily for proper examples on Health, and that so far only seems to exist by Red Hat, also others like Config.

Unlike Config which includes some extra references to Wildfly Swarm, the Simple Health Example looks like this:

https://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=org/wildfly/microprofile-health-simple-example/1.0.0/microprofile-health-simple-example-1.0.0.pom

So the only dependency is Java EE 7, thus one would expect the WAR to work properly in every Java EE 7 compliant container even Wildfly prior to 10 or others like Payara/Glassfish, etc.

While there is nothing against vendors doing their own examples and extensions to offer a competitive edge over others, in a declared vendor-neutral project I would also hope to see more examples that you can literally drop into more than one like Ivar, myself or others show at conferences and similar events.

Werner

[Emily Jiang]

Arjan,

CI/submission server is a good idea. It works for open source projects that uses CI for building. For servers that not use this infrastructure, maybe upload the summary of the final run?

Emily

[Emily Jiang]

Just continue the discussion on this since Fujisu also supported MicroProfile 1.1 (Lilian also suggested).
I am suggestion to divide this discussion in two parts:

1. create a wiki page to list the implementors per spec

2. discuss more on the proof of certifying the individual specs.

I will start to collect info for 1.
As for 2, I think the test log can be uploaded for the app servers not being built using CI servers. For CI servers, I like what Arjan proposed, just upload the link.

Thoughts?

Emily

[Mike Croft]

+1 for Arjan's suggestion, it sounds very pragmatic. I've tried maintaining documentation like this in a github repository before, but it's a lot of effort to produce in the first place, let alone maintain. The more automation the better!

[John D. Ament]

That only works when the implementation is open source.  While I love open source, I would hate to say that you can only be open source to implement MP.  I think uploading logs/linking to logs works well.

For instance, here's a build log for Hammock, which shows how many MP tests are passing https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/285285371/log.txt?X-Amz-Expires=30&X-Amz-Date=20171115T125319Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJRYRXRSVGNKPKO5A/20171115/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=bd2f1993c57f5a077225af0a095f04e89aa43460722395a1c9694841e6bf606a

Although now that I'm digging through it's very hard to find.  I'm not sure that https://travis-ci.org/hammock-project/hammock/jobs/285285371 is any easier to parse.

[Arjan Tijms]

Hi,

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 1:55:26 PM UTC+1, John D. Ament wrote:

That only works when the implementation is open source.  While I love open source, I would hate to say that you can only be open source to implement MP.

It's not necessarily open source that is required. I tested Liberty this way many times when it was still closed source. The easiest thing though is if the binary to be tested is available in a public Maven repo (like Maven central), but a private repo with credentials could also work. Source availability is not a requirement for an artefact in a Maven repo. Indeed, Liberty is/was available in Maven central, without a source jar.

The private repo, if used, can be external, with the CI having the credentials to access it, or one could upload the required closed source binaries via a protected interface directly to the CI server. This protected interface could simply be Nexus behind a login.

Either way the exact conditions of how the implementation passed would automatically be documented and repeatable this way, without a company having to give access to either the source or even the binary to the public. 

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

[Alasdair Nottingham]

As the lead in IBM for Liberty, and having been involved in all the discussions that led to Liberty being in Maven Central I have some experience in this space. Even if a binary is in Maven Central, its use by a CI in the manner described is likely problematic and I think would be a barrier for non-open source implementations.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice (standard disclaimer), but when we put first Liberty in Maven Central the license would have prevented the use described. The license precluded free use on a CI server. This wasn’t an academic consideration because we were asked about this by an open source project wanting to run equivalent tests, their “laywers” told them to steer clear. We had to go through the process in IBM of a) issuing a unique license (which didn’t end up happening for boring reasons), and b) updating the license for a future update in Maven Central. Both were non-trivial. 

Although you make it sound trivial, if you do not have a nexus server already the requirement to run a nexus server behind a login is significant. We don’t currently run one for Liberty because security compliance for the system with corporate IT is non-trivial (and rightly so). The login requirement can also lead to extra US export considerations which may apply (they do to US based companies, and to many non-US based companies too).

I agree for open source this sound like a promising solution, but I think there is a reason why the JCP and OSGi Alliance operate a self certification model. Submit the results and someone validates them and updates a web page. It is simple, and easy and provides a level playing field (well provided you can get the TCK at least).

Alasdair

--

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/fdf035d8-783c-430f-83bc-48cc51c43b8d%40googlegroups.com.

[Emily Jiang]

+1 Alasdair. I think what I suggested originally should work:

2. discuss more on the proof of certifying the individual specs.

As for 2, I think the test log can be uploaded for the app servers not being built using CI servers. For CI servers, I like what Arjan proposed, just upload the link.

With what Alasdair said, for the Close source app servers, their test logs can be certified by a third party or maybe by some of our committer group. Thoughts?

Emily

[Arjan Tijms]

Hi,

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 6:15:37 PM UTC+1, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:

As the lead in IBM for Liberty, and having been involved in all the discussions that led to Liberty being in Maven Central I have some experience in this space. Even if a binary is in Maven Central, its use by a CI in the manner described is likely problematic and I think would be a barrier for non-open source implementations.

Now that you mention it, I do indeed remember we chatted about exactly this some year or two ago, and you said back then that it's indeed not necessarily trivial. Sorry for forgetting that.

That said, if a vendor themselves provides a binary for the exclusive use of running a test once for which the vendor wants recognition, isn't that a slightly different case?

What I'm imagining is that vendor X does a public PR to the test repo with something like the following fragment in a profile:

              <!-- more stuff -->

              <plugins>

                    <plugin>

                        <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>

                        <artifactId>maven-dependency-plugin</artifactId>

                        <executions>

                            <execution>

                                <id>unpack</id>

                                <phase>process-test-classes</phase>

                                <goals>

                                    <goal>unpack</goal>

                                </goals>

                                <configuration>

                                    <artifactItems>

                                        <artifactItem>

                                            <groupId>org.vendorx.producty</groupId>

                                            <artifactId>product</artifactId>

                                            <version>q.r</version>

                                            <type>zip</type>

                                            <overWrite>false</overWrite>

                                            <outputDirectory>${project.build.directory}</outputDirectory>

                                        </artifactItem>

                                    </artifactItems>

                                </configuration>

                            </execution>

                        </executions>

                    </plugin>

                   <!-- more stuff -->

Now vendor X provides artefact Y, and the sysop of the testing server installs the artefact in the local .m2 under org.vendorx.producty:product:q.r, triggers the test, and if it works (build passes, technically), the resulting report is uploaded. One way or the other the artefact can be removed after running the test.

There's some manual work here, but nothing too crazy IMHO.

If even this is too much for a vendor, uploading a test report could be accepted as a last resort, but as Emily said, would be good if some third party was allowed to verify this. (verification then on its turn is not really that much different from the process described above).

Finally if a vendor is so secretive about its binary that even verification is prohibited, we may still allow the report to be uploaded without verification, but then just display an "unverified" banner?

[Emily Jiang]

+1.

By the way, to follow up with the action I set, I have finally created a wiki to store all the implementations first. It is here. Please update the wiki according to your knowledge. I have added Open liberty and WebSphere Liberty 17.0.0.3 to fully support all of the MP 1.2 specs.

Thanks
Emily

[Raymond Auge]

Emily, just a nit pick, but the word "Implementations" in every heading is really redundant. I think it could be implied (i.e. removed completely).

Also "on the progress" could be "in progress"

and "to be started" could be "pending"

Sincerely,

- Ray

--

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.

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/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Raymond Augé (@rotty3000)

Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay)

Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@OSGiAlliance)

[Matjaz B. Juric]

How do you edit this page. It seems I don't have the credentials. KumuluzEE supports all five specs, so I would like to add it the list.

Thanks,
Matjaz

[Emily Jiang]

Hi Matjaz,

You need to login with your eclipse account.

Emily

[Emily Jiang]

Thanks Ray for your feedback! I've updated the table based on your suggestion. Great to see you here!

Emily

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 6:19:37 PM UTC, Raymond Auge wrote:

Emily, just a nit pick, but the word "Implementations" in every heading is really redundant. I think it could be implied (i.e. removed completely).

Also "on the progress" could be "in progress"

and "to be started" could be "pending"

Sincerely,

- Ray

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM, 'Emily Jiang' via Eclipse MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

+1.

By the way, to follow up with the action I set, I have finally created a wiki to store all the implementations first. It is here. Please update the wiki according to your knowledge. I have added Open liberty and WebSphere Liberty 17.0.0.3 to fully support all of the MP 1.2 specs.

Thanks
Emily


On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 4:53:58 PM UTC, Emily Jiang wrote:

Last week, Kevin, Heiko and I briefly discussed on the MP release compliance. At the moment, there is no evidence or it is unclear how many application servers or runtime fully implemented the MP 1.2 releases or individual specification.

Should we add such info in microprofile.io or somewhere safe for logging this info. Also, do we need the implementors to upload the tck final summary or we trust them?

Thoughts?
Emily

--
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/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Lilian BENOIT]

Thanks Emily for this page.

I think that il would be interesting to add a table with MP Release (1.2
and 1.3) at the top.
So, users can lookup full implementation for MP release (all specs for
this release), after he can lookup for specific specs as he want.

Throughts ?

If we are ok, i can modify this page in this goal.

Lilian.

Le 2017-11-22 18:55, 'Emily Jiang' via Eclipse MicroProfile a écrit :
> +1.
>
> By the way, to follow up with the action I set, I have finally created

> a wiki to store all the implementations first. It is here [2]. Please

> update the wiki according to your knowledge. I have added Open liberty
> and WebSphere Liberty 17.0.0.3 to fully support all of the MP 1.2
> specs.
>
> Thanks
> Emily
>
> On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 4:53:58 PM UTC, Emily Jiang wrote:
>
>> Last week, Kevin, Heiko and I briefly discussed on the MP release
>> compliance. At the moment, there is no evidence or it is unclear how
>> many application servers or runtime fully implemented the MP 1.2
>> releases or individual specification.
>>

>> Should we add such info in microprofile.io [1] or somewhere safe for

>> logging this info. Also, do we need the implementors to upload the
>> tck final summary or we trust them?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Emily
>

> --
> 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/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com

> [3].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [4].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://microprofile.io
> [2] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
> [3]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> [4] https://groups.google.com/d/optout

[Emily Jiang]

Good suggestions! I was thinking about this the other day. We can create separate pages for each release. In this case, there won't be a lot of scroll to be performed. The current page will be MP 1.2 implementation status and then create another page for MP 1.3 implementation status.

What do you think?

Emily

an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@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/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com

[3].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [4].


Links:
------
[1] http://microprofile.io
[2] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
[3]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[4] https://groups.google.com/d/optout

--
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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@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/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Lilian BENOIT]

if we have separate pages for each release, it's more difficult for
looking for implementation.
For example, MicroProfile 1.2 and 1.3 have common specs.

For simplify, we can transform one table by spec and one table for MP
release on top.
Version spec is included on each table.

Thought ?

Lilian.

>> Should we add such info in microprofile.io [1] [1] or somewhere

>> safe for
>> logging this info. Also, do we need the implementors to upload the
>> tck final summary or we trust them?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Emily
>>
>> --
>> 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/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com

>> [2]
>> [3].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [4].
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://microprofile.io [1]
>> [2] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation [4]
>> [3]
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>> [5]
>> [4] https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3]

>
> --
> 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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe

> [6].

> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
> [7].
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].

>
> --
>
> Thanks
> Emily
> =================
> Emily Jiang
> eji...@apache.org
>

> --
> 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/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com
> [8].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].

>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://microprofile.io
> [2]

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com
> [3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> [4] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
> [5]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=footer
> [6]
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe
> [7]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
> [8]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Emily Jiang]

It is difficult to envisage what you meant. Go ahead to edit the table. If it is not clear, we can always improve on the top of it.

Emily

an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@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/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com

[2]
[3].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [4].

Links:
------
[1] http://microprofile.io [1]
[2] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation [4]
[3]

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[5]
[4] https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3]

--
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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe
[6].

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to

microprofile+unsubscribe@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/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr

[7].

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].

--

Thanks
Emily
=================
Emily Jiang
eji...@apache.org

 --
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.

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/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com
[8].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].


Links:
------
[1] http://microprofile.io
[2]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com
[3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
[4] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
[5]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=footer
[6] https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe
[7]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
[8]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

--
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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@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/1c5d57bc81e5d6909b65db0b4a7f3053%40lbenoit.fr.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Clingan]

Emily, you're WebSphere Liberty links point to wasdev, but not to WebSphere Liberty. Can you change to point to a WebSphere Liberty page?

[Alasdair Nottingham]

Can clarify what you want it to link to. If WASdev doesn’t count I’m not sure what would. 

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/2746c539-e764-4ef8-9e5c-5c684a824b92%40googlegroups.com.

[Lilian BENOIT]

I updated wiki page according my idea.

What do you think ?

PS : I added link to Launcher (Kenji's mail) for MicroProfile 1.1

Lilian.

>> Should we add such info in microprofile.io [1] [1] [1] or somewhere

>> safe for
>> logging this info. Also, do we need the implementors to upload the
>> tck final summary or we trust them?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Emily
>>
>> --
>> 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/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com
>> [2]
>> [2]
>> [3].

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [3]
>> [4].
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://microprofile.io [1] [1]
>> [2] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation [4] [4]

>> [3]
>>
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>> [5]
>> [5]

>> [4] https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [3]

>>
>> --
>> 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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe
>> [6]
>> [6].
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
>> [7]
>> [7].
>>

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [3].

>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks
>> Emily
>> =================
>> Emily Jiang
>> eji...@apache.org
>>
>> --
>> 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/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> [8]
>> [8].

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [3].
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://microprofile.io [1]
>> [2]
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com
>> [2]
>> [3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3]
>> [4] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation [4]
>> [5]
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=footer
>> [9]
>> [6]
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe
>> [6]
>> [7]
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
>> [7]
>> [8]
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>> [10]

>
> --
> 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/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe
> [6].
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/1c5d57bc81e5d6909b65db0b4a7f3053%40lbenoit.fr
> [11].

>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>
> --
>
> Thanks
> Emily
> =================
> Emily Jiang
> eji...@apache.org
>
> --
> 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/CAECq3A9gW1Z81nkuGf5pwkxccUrDz7tUzfign%3DqcCduM9G8NCQ%40mail.gmail.com
> [12].

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://microprofile.io
> [2]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com
> [3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> [4] https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
> [5]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=footer
> [6]
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/xd1wyQXJZ_A/unsubscribe
> [7]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
> [8]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com

> [9]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/da040038-d7f0-40cf-9bd0-deefca39c038%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&amp;amp;utm_source=footer
> [10]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A__t9bJ%3DFwkonwwmbTveS32-Pi4eT%3Des4Ksn%3D9y_nhk%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=footer
> [11]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/1c5d57bc81e5d6909b65db0b4a7f3053%40lbenoit.fr
> [12]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A9gW1Z81nkuGf5pwkxccUrDz7tUzfign%3DqcCduM9G8NCQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[John D. Ament]

The wiki page is very hard to find, I think we need to do more to promote it.  But I think I found it - https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation - is that it?

Anyways, I went ahead and added:

- Hammock for MP 1.1

- Apache Geronimo Config for MP Config 1.1

- Apache Safeguard for Fault Tolerance 1.0

I have some further concerns.  Why do we say only the MP specs have to be included?  We should include CDI, JAX-RS and JSON-P I would think.

>> an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> microprofile+unsubscribe@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/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
>> [7]
>> [7].
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [3].
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks
>> Emily
>> =================
>> Emily Jiang
>> eji...@apache.org
>>
>> --
>> 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.

> microprofile+unsubscribe@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/1c5d57bc81e5d6909b65db0b4a7f3053%40lbenoit.fr
> [11].
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>
> --
>
> Thanks
> Emily
> =================
> Emily Jiang
> eji...@apache.org
>
>  --
> 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]

Hi John,
That is the correct link. Maybe we should put the link on the microprofie.io webpage.

>Why do we say only the MP specs have to be included?  We should include CDI, JAX-RS and JSON-P I would think.

Do you mean to also add CDI, JAX-RS and JSON-P on the page? I am ok with adding it to make the picture complete.

@Lilian, I like the new look you updated. Thanks!

Emily

>> an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

>> 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/d0d4a495c0ecc3ca3e089f46fb22a41e%40lbenoit.fr
>> [7]
>> [7].
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] [3].
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks
>> Emily
>> =================
>> Emily Jiang
>> eji...@apache.org
>>
>> --
>> 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.

> 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/1c5d57bc81e5d6909b65db0b4a7f3053%40lbenoit.fr
> [11].
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>
> --
>
> Thanks
> Emily
> =================
> Emily Jiang
> eji...@apache.org
>
>  --
> 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.

[Lilian BENOIT]

Hi all,

I add CDI, JAX-RS and JSON-P on this page.

I indicate version of implementation for Launcher, Hammock et Payara
I think that it's very important for developper. When Microprofile 1.3
go out, developer will want know minimal version of implementation that
support this release.

@John
You added Hammock for microprofile 1.1 but i see on release note that
hammock 2.0 is compatible for MicroProfile 1.2.
is it normal ?

@Emily
+1 for put link on microprofile.io


PS : https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation

Lilian.

Le 2017-11-29 17:14, 'Emily Jiang' via Eclipse MicroProfile a écrit :
> Hi John,
> That is the correct link. Maybe we should put the link on the
> microprofie.io webpage.
>
>> Why do we say only the MP specs have to be included? We should
> include CDI, JAX-RS and JSON-P I would think.
> Do you mean to also add CDI, JAX-RS and JSON-P on the page? I am ok
> with adding it to make the picture complete.
>
> @Lilian, I like the new look you updated. Thanks!
>
> Emily
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:01:18 PM UTC, John D. Ament wrote:
>
>> The wiki page is very hard to find, I think we need to do more to
>> promote it. But I think I found it -

>> https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation [4] - is that

>>>>> Should we add such info in microprofile.io [1] [1] [1] [1] or

[John D. Ament]

Lilian:

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-5, Lilian BENOIT wrote:

Hi all,

I add CDI, JAX-RS and JSON-P on this page.

I indicate version of implementation for Launcher, Hammock et Payara
I think that it's very important for developper. When Microprofile 1.3
go out, developer will want know minimal version of implementation that
support this release.

@John
You added Hammock for microprofile 1.1 but i see on release note that
hammock 2.0 is compatible for MicroProfile 1.2.
is it normal ?

I'm not sure what you mean by normal here, I'm looking at the release on github, maybe you see something else? https://github.com/hammock-project/hammock/releases/tag/hammock-2.0

It mentions "aligns with MicroProfile 1.2" doesn't say implements.  So yes, a specific choice of words on my part :-)