Hmm, would work and be saner that what i had in mind. In term of which one wraps the other I'm tempted to say javax.* will move slower than MP so I'd impl javax.* with MP but no strong opposition on the other side for now, doesn't impact the user anyway, right?
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn 2017-10-27 21:09 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > Maybe we can go yet another way. > Take what we have right now (MicroProfile-API) and expose the JSR-382 > functionality as wrapper in an additional module? > > It would also be possible to do it the other way around: have the core use > javax.config.* and expose the MP apis in an additional module. > > I'd say whatever provides more features should be the base system. > The other should get exposed on top of it. > > Currently it would even be trivial to have an own project with just a few > lines which implements JSR-382 on top of any MicroProfile-config container. > On the long term I expect javax.config.* to be used predominantly though. > > Wdyt? > > LieGrue, > strub > > > On Friday, 27 October 2017, 18:14:39 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid > branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a > headache when fixing something :s > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn > > > 2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >> I thought about just providing another branch. >> One for MP, the other for the JSR. >> >> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally >> released. >> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting. >> >> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say. >> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of >> the JSR? >> >> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which >> exposes >> the mechanism for the MP API. >> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine >> with >> it. >> >> John >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> sounds like a good idea. >> Happy to help if you wish >> >> JLouis >> >> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Hi folks! >> >> The EG started working on JSR-382. >> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work. >> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config. >> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :) >> >> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config >> project. >> Any objection? >> >> LieGrue, >> strub
