yes, it has no effect on the users.
Currently there are not many new features planned for MP-config.But we are
discussing 2 new features in the ConfigJSR.So I assume that javax.config will
have more features for now.
LieGrue,strub
On Friday, 27 October 2017, 21:54:58 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
