Skip to first unread message
Kevin Sutter
May 2, 2017, 9:04:17 PM5/2/17
to MicroProfile
Hi,
We had a good discussion on today's MicroProfile hangout about the MicroProfile roadmap. Not a huge turnout, but good discussion. Let me summarize...
Prospective users of our technology are interested in where we are going. They can see what we've done with MicroProfile 1.0, but they are wondering what's coming next in 1.x and beyond. We need to communicate a consistent vision going forward, especially with the Conference season fast upon us. All of us should be telling the same story. I would also like to post some Roadmap information on our MicroProfile website for a wider audience.
To that end, I threw together the attached chart deck. It's very short. I first presented it to John last week and he thought it would be good for our whole community to consume. Thus, the hangout call today. There was enough enthusiasm from the call today to warrant a wider distribution. I know that the Redhat team would like to use some of this material for their Summit sessions this week. And, it could also be used at next week's Devoxx UK. We have several more conferences coming up over the summer months, culminating with JavaOne in Sept.
Because of these immediate needs, I'd like to get some immediate feedback. One of the main items that we discussed earlier today was the time-boxed vs feature-based delivery mechanism. We agreed that we like the time-boxed release mechanism, but base it off a prioritized list of potential features. We need this list of prioritized features (work item). In the mean time, I just indicated that the content of the various releases will be based off a prioritized list. If something is not ready for a given release, then it will either get scaled back to fit or move to the next release.
The other key release discussion point is when to introduce the new Java EE 8 technologies (CDI 2.0, JAX-RS 2.1, and JSON-P 1.1). You'll notice I am proposing an update to the version level to 2.x for this type of update. This would allow some vendors to continue with Java EE 7 technologies until they have the capability to move to Java EE 8 technologies, and still keep up with the other non-Java EE features.
With all of that, take a look at the roadmap proposal and let's discuss. Thanks.
Kevin
We had a good discussion on today's MicroProfile hangout about the MicroProfile roadmap. Not a huge turnout, but good discussion. Let me summarize...
Prospective users of our technology are interested in where we are going. They can see what we've done with MicroProfile 1.0, but they are wondering what's coming next in 1.x and beyond. We need to communicate a consistent vision going forward, especially with the Conference season fast upon us. All of us should be telling the same story. I would also like to post some Roadmap information on our MicroProfile website for a wider audience.
To that end, I threw together the attached chart deck. It's very short. I first presented it to John last week and he thought it would be good for our whole community to consume. Thus, the hangout call today. There was enough enthusiasm from the call today to warrant a wider distribution. I know that the Redhat team would like to use some of this material for their Summit sessions this week. And, it could also be used at next week's Devoxx UK. We have several more conferences coming up over the summer months, culminating with JavaOne in Sept.
Because of these immediate needs, I'd like to get some immediate feedback. One of the main items that we discussed earlier today was the time-boxed vs feature-based delivery mechanism. We agreed that we like the time-boxed release mechanism, but base it off a prioritized list of potential features. We need this list of prioritized features (work item). In the mean time, I just indicated that the content of the various releases will be based off a prioritized list. If something is not ready for a given release, then it will either get scaled back to fit or move to the next release.
The other key release discussion point is when to introduce the new Java EE 8 technologies (CDI 2.0, JAX-RS 2.1, and JSON-P 1.1). You'll notice I am proposing an update to the version level to 2.x for this type of update. This would allow some vendors to continue with Java EE 7 technologies until they have the capability to move to Java EE 8 technologies, and still keep up with the other non-Java EE features.
With all of that, take a look at the roadmap proposal and let's discuss. Thanks.
Kevin
Mark Little
May 3, 2017, 5:42:04 AM5/3/17
to Kevin Sutter, MicroProfile
Kevin, apologies for not being able to attend but Summit has taken up all my time this week. Thanks for pulling together this deck - it is very useful and I’d definitely like to refer to some or all of the content next week when we are at Devoxx UK.
One question I have for you about the hangout discussions: did the topic of “not letting best get in the way of better” come up? I think some proposals are moving ahead well but I also worry that some other proposals, or maybe even future proposals, may get stuck in the cycle of wanting to ensure everything is just right before proceeding. If we were a standards body where we had mature products which have been in deployment use for many years then that makes sense. We’re not a standards body and we need to start small, iterate and be prepared to fail. I’ve always thought that updates to MP releases should be able to remove/deprecate things we did just as much as add new capabilities and if we get into that mindset perhaps it makes it easier to release early and release often.
Mark.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/04471946-cc73-4785-b10a-dbb3a701eb8c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<MicroProfile Roadmap 050217.pptx>
sst...@redhat.com
May 3, 2017, 12:36:47 PM5/3/17
to MicroProfile, kwsu...@gmail.com
No, that specific topic did not come up. We did talk some about what constitutes the readiness of a proposal, but I think this is something that needs to be more formalized along the lines of a readiness checklist or the like. This also needs to dovetail into the brief discussion that came up regarding time box vs feature based releases.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages