The risk for TomEE (IMHO indeed) is that, using smallrye, you break the core value "apache" or at least "owned by apache" and break the other core value "lightweight" since it comes with a tons of uneeded stuff and implementation is not even JAXRS friendly (it breaks literally jaxrs and cdi at multiple levels) so it can mean contributing to smallrye which means at the end asking mircoprofile to not be a spec but just an implementation and TomEE to stick to a dedicated MP distro (not in all others) to not kill itself - not saying it does not makes sense but it is what it means concretely.
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. 31 mars 2022 à 21:36, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit : > It would be great to see us have compliant MicroProfile implementations > somewhere in Apache; Geronimo, TomEE, CXF. It's still my personal > preference -- It makes very little sense to go through the effort to > create a spec and tck to enable multiple implementations that can > compete/innovate and then wind up with just one implementation in the > industry. > > That said, from a TomEE perspective we're struggling to keep up with all > specs, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile. Part of that is we do try to uniquely > implement specs, while everyone else just uses the exact same > implementation. We're not really playing the same game. We would need > more resources than the competition to compete in the way we have been > attempting. However, because we're behind, we end up with fewer resources > and larger gaps between implementations and over time our goals becomes > harder, not easier. > > I wonder if we should switch to the SmallRye implementations where > needed. Not because we've given up hope of having Apache implementations, > but because if we assume our desire to do the implementation work here is a > constant and we know the time to get there will some number of months and > that will likely be after complete our Jakarta EE spec work, which is also > some number of months... we're basically talking sometime 2023. The > question then becomes, how do we want to spend our time till then? Do we > want to spend it in a compliant state or a non-compliant state? > > If we spend the next year and change in a compliant state, using the > SmallRye impls where needed until we've created compliant Apache versions, > then we are competitive and will gain resources. The date on which we > would have resources to create those Apache implementations would likely be > sooner. If we spend the next year and change still not in a compliant > state (as we've been since 2020), then we'l continue to take a resource hit > and the date on which we would have resources to create those Apache > implementations would likely be later. There are also other risks with > this approach. > > So though it may seem backwards my gut says, unless we get a dramatic > influx of resources from nowhere, we should use SmallRye where we need > until we have the time to dedicate to the Apache implementations. > > > -David > > > > On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:44 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Small update regarding jakarta namespace switch and MicroProfile. Adding > > Geronimo dev@list because we are using most of the Geronimo > implementations > > > > In order to migrate, we have created a shaded version of all MicroProfile > > APIs to relocate all javax to jakarta. It worked but it's causing some > > issues with TCK. They are not relocated so of course, all TCK are > failing. > > > > I wanted to see how far we are regarding our implementations, so I went > > ahead and updated all TCK to the latest version (and compatible with the > > Jakarta namespace). > > > > The other option would be to grab all the TCK and create their equivalent > > in jakarta namespace using the same approach as for the APIs. > > > > What are your thoughts? > > > > -- > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > http://www.tomitribe.com > >
