Hi guys, Just to update you: we just passed the TCK. Impl is likely not perfect but I proposed @geronimo to start a 1.0.0 vote with that since we are tck friendly and then iterate with the classical reports/bugs/... flow. I introduced a very light reflection abstraction to isolate most of the logic from CDI so assuming the scanning logic is rewritten (this is not much code but it is technology specific) then it should be quite easy to make it match CXF. Technically, doing a maven plugin to prebuild the openapi.json is very feasible too (i'm planning to do some tests on this one soon).
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le dim. 24 juin 2018 à 23:04, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Le dim. 24 juin 2018 21:59, Andriy Redko <drr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> Hi Romain, >> >> Just went through the issues and comment threads. I am not really >> involved in MP (sadly) >> but the YAML+JSON discussion makes sense to me, at least from the >> platform perspective. JSON >> should be a must, YAML is optional (although it is very popular in >> OpenAPI community). My personal >> position regarding the builder vs annotations is a matter of choice / >> preference. There are >> centainly pros and cons of both, valid arguments are listed. I don't >> think either of them is >> perfect for everyone, supporting both options sounds like a good >> trade-off, let devs pick whatever >> fits better to the particular project / context. >> > > It assumes the ee5 pattern and forgets the cdi/event ones. I agree it is > not yet mainstream but it is a convergence opportunity. In particular when > you see all the reference workarounds annotation require and an > event/programmatic solution doesnt. It is a huge gain in practise if you > have endpoints using the same models. > > Kind of theory vs practise feedback probably. > > >> The issue related to model serialization takes unexpected turn towards >> https://github.com/OpenAPITools >> project ... I don't know the full details but afaik these guys are >> forking Swagger projects (swagger-codegen notably) >> and rebranding under OpenApiTools umbrella. I am working on the PR >> https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-codegen-generators/pull/101 to >> replace code generation of old Swagger / OpenAPI 2.x with OpenAPI 3.x >> (since Apache CXF >> supports that out of the box). If things work out here as expected, I >> would be happy to help to introduce MP part >> (server stubs or/and client) as well. >> > > Yep. My concern here is that using a custom serializer leads to limit the > spec usage to the spec endpoint. It is likely 20% only of the main usages > so spec will likely be replaced by something else anyway if it stays as > such :(. > > >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> Andriy Redko >> >> RMB> Hi guys, >> >> RMB> opened several issues about the spec and a few of them are serious >> concerns >> RMB> for me (others are easier): >> >> RMB> 1. https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-open-api/issues/231 >> RMB> 2. https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-open-api/issues/230 >> RMB> 3. https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-open-api/issues/228 >> >> RMB> Seems like there was no time to think about an API so swagger was >> just >> RMB> copied (and adapted to openapi) which leads to something quite >> inconsistent >> RMB> for end users and also inconsistent with the platform. >> RMB> It doesn't prevent us to implement it but would be great if some of >> you can >> RMB> check out issues and potentially vote for them. There is no Strong >> API >> RMB> stability requirement at microprofile so there is stilla hope the >> API is >> RMB> made simpler and usable by end users. >> >> RMB> In short (if you don't want to open the links) the issues are: >> >> RMB> 1. YAML is mandatory but there is nothing standard to modelize it so >> it is >> RMB> an internal of the implementation and the format is not user >> friendly until >> RMB> you use something outside the spec >> RMB> 2. The model is using OpenAPI object graph but it is not integrated >> with >> RMB> JSON-B so it is not (de)serializable correctly for end user. It also >> breaks >> RMB> the JAXRS serialization since each single object of the graph will >> need a >> RMB> custom message reader/writer to work (but the spec doesnt spec about >> that >> RMB> so payloads will not be the expected ones, in particular if you send >> back >> RMB> from a client which got OpenAPI instance some subgraph!) >> RMB> 3. There are 2 API in the spec: a builder one and an annotation >> driven one. >> RMB> The builder is sufficient and associated with a startup event allows >> to >> RMB> avoid the annotations need which just duplicates the builder 1-1 >> with very >> RMB> few semantic differences for ref and map management. >> >> RMB> In one sentence it means that the API could be easier, less >> ambiguous for >> RMB> end users, the integration with the platform more consistent and >> that it is >> RMB> a very simple investment and work. It just needs to be made portable >> RMB> accross vendor. >> >> RMB> Romain Manni-Bucau >> RMB> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> RMB> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> RMB> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >> RMB> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> RMB> < >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance >> > >> >> >> RMB> Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 16:20, Raymond Auge <raymond.a...@liferay.com> >> a >> RMB> écrit : >> >> >> Great! >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> @Raymond: the diff between CDI and OSGi will be where the OpenAPI >> >>> instance will be created mainly so very doable (aries can even import >> >>> G-openapi for that). Only diff which can be quite intrusive is that >> @G we >> >>> don't use plain reflection to enable CDI meta model to be mutated >> during >> >>> startup and therefore let the user configure most of the model >> instead of >> >>> hardcoding it, but it is not that hard to abstract so I'm very >> confident to >> >>> keep it abstracted and to support OSGi once we support the spec with >> CDI >> >>> (and why not supporting CDI in aries ;)). >> >> >> >> Regarding supporting CDI in Aries ;) it should look pretty much like >> any >> >> normal CDI extension with a tiny amount of extra OSGi metadata and >> what I >> >> hope are very reasonable restrictions on how extensions provide beans, >> if >> >> any. >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> - Ray >> >> >> >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> >>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> >>> < >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance >> > >> >> >> >>> Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 15:21, Raymond Auge <raymond.a...@liferay.com> >> a >> >>> écrit : >> >> >>>> It would be _nice_ if we could figure out a way for this to be >> usable by >> >>>> Apache Aries JAXRS Whiteboard [1] which is an implementation of OSGi >> JAXRS >> >>>> Whiteboard [2]. >> >> >>>> It would seem that a small SPI on the part of Geronimo's mp-openapi >> >>>> might be enough (so as not to pressure this up onto the mp spec). >> >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/aries-jax-rs-whiteboard >> >>>> [2] >> https://osgi.org/specification/osgi.cmpn/7.0.0/service.jaxrs.html >> >> >> >>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Mark Struberg < >> >>>> strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>>>> I think it fits well to geronimo. >> >>>>> The question is rather if CXF is fine with relying on CDI for >> openapi? >> >>>>> But since MicroProfile _requires_ CDI I think there is safe to >> assume >> >>>>> so. >> >> >>>>> LieGrue, >> >>>>> strub >> >> >>>>> > Am 21.06.2018 um 09:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Hello guys, >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > we created a repo for that and to be able to share what we do: >> >>>>> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=geronimo-openapi.git >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > I pushed a basic starting structure of the code. The big TODO is >> the >> >>>>> > conversion from the model (annotations) to OpenAPI instance (which >> >>>>> should >> >>>>> > be somewhere here >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=geronimo-openapi.git;a=blob;f=src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/microprofile/openapi/impl/processor/AnnotationProcessor.java;h=141227b579495e2b072710fadb28f2d08ab07616;hb=HEAD >> >>>>> > or split in multiple "visitors" if desired). >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > If anyone wants to help it is welcomed. Also note it is not too >> late >> >>>>> to >> >>>>> > change the project hosting or other details if there is some >> points we >> >>>>> > missed until now. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>>> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> >>>>> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> >>>>> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < >> >>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >> >>>>> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> >>>>> > < >> >>>>> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 07:39, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> a >> >>>>> > écrit : >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >> Basically read metadata from AnnotatedTypes (cdi) used by jaxrs >> cdi >> >>>>> >> extension. Im not yet sure i will need the extension itself or >> not >> >>>>> (doesnt >> >>>>> >> seem hard to not use it for that and would stay portable). >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 00:36, Andriy Redko <drr...@gmail.com> a >> écrit >> >>>>> : >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >>> Hey Romain, >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> Thanks for starting work on that. Indeed, >> >>>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7601 is >> >>>>> >>> opened but not started yet, sadly. So what is your plan / scope, >> >>>>> generate >> >>>>> >>> the OpenAPI 3.x >> >>>>> >>> specs from JAX-RS 2.1 metadata? Or someting else? May be we >> could >> >>>>> also >> >>>>> >>> help you with that? >> >>>>> >>> Thanks! >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> Best Regards, >> >>>>> >>> Andriy Redko >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> RMB> Independent, cdi based (not reflection based) >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> RMB> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 22:34, John D. Ament < >> >>>>> johndam...@apache.org> a >> >>>>> >>> écrit : >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> If it's hosted at Geronimo will it be platform independent? >> Or >> >>>>> only >> >>>>> >>> work >> >>>>> >>>>> with CXF? >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 3:30 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >>>>> >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi guys, >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> I'm planning to implement microprofile-openapi at geronimo >> (next >> >>>>> to >> >>>>> >>> other >> >>>>> >>>>>> microprofile specs) soon (probably beginning of next month). >> >>>>> Before >> >>>>> >>> doing >> >>>>> >>>>>> so I wanted to get in touch with you to ensure it was not >> already >> >>>>> >>> there >> >>>>> >>>>>> (@asf). I know CXF has a swagger impl but here, we speak >> about a >> >>>>> new >> >>>>> >>> API >> >>>>> >>>>>> and I hope to make it dep free and aligned on other geronimo >> >>>>> impls >> >>>>> >>>>>> (assuming jsonb+jaxrs+cdi is in the server already which is >> very >> >>>>> >>>>> acceptable >> >>>>> >>>>>> for a MP server). >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> Anything I should check before launching the project or is >> the >> >>>>> road >> >>>>> >>> as >> >>>>> >>>>> open >> >>>>> >>>>>> as I think? >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> Technical side note: compared to the MP rest client which >> was way >> >>>>> >>> easier >> >>>>> >>>>> to >> >>>>> >>>>>> impl @cxf cause all the code was already there, the openapi >> is >> >>>>> more >> >>>>> >>> based >> >>>>> >>>>>> on CDI than CXF internal model so not hosting it @cxf is not >> an >> >>>>> >>> issue for >> >>>>> >>>>>> this one so don't feel any pressure please. >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> >>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>>> >>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> >>>>> >>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> >>>>> >>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < >> >>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >> >>>>> >>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> >>>>> >>>>>> < >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> >> >>>> (@rotty3000) >> >>>> Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> >> >>>> (@Liferay) >> >>>> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org> >> >>>> (@OSGiAlliance) >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> >> >> (@rotty3000) >> >> Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> >> >> (@Liferay) >> >> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org> >> >> (@OSGiAlliance) >> >> >>
