Full agree JL - and btw we hijacked the thread ;). The key point for a spec is to be inclusive and take feedback from vendors to converge. Factually all feedbacks were rejected from the core members in several big specs - some went very well like JSON-B - and not only from a single contributor but multiples so there is a clear violation of the root contract which is to do an abstraction multi-vendors in the governance. The MP reversion to Jakarta is even blocked by such policy, the points are literally 'then we can't do what we want anymore'. I fully share your worries but as a project we should think to our users first and ensure we adopt a clear position in this context where, I have to admit, we don't have much weight whatever we do.
Le mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 11:33, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a écrit : > This is a big issue at the moment for the java ecosystem. The industry > spends a lot of time trying to get specifications out and users/industry to > adopt them regardless of the application server of implementation. But the > more we move forward the less implementations we have. > > MicroProfile, Jakarta, all the same. Most of the vendors now use the same > implementation. At Apache we still have some alternatives for JPA, CDI and > a couple more and I think it's good overall for the ecosystem. But for how > long will it continue? > > Le mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 11:20, Mark Struberg via dev < > dev@geronimo.apache.org> a écrit : > >> That's right. The MicroProfile stuff is not much used these days anymore. >> Which is actually sad, because it was a good initiative. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> Am 23.11.2022 um 11:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com >> >: >> >> In terms of storage and committers you are right but in terms of users a >> key difference is "will it be a new release". >> If you look at MP it is quite unlikely since project seems way less >> consummed than it was some years ago and since TomEE moves to smallrye at >> the same time we don't update it anymore, not sure we would do any new >> release. >> So while it is ok to keep it there, we should also communicate clearly we >> don't intend to do any new release if it is the case - same story than >> geronimo server basically. >> >> 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 mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 11:00, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> Yeah I understand there isn't much activity, but from time to time, they >>> are updated to follow specifications and they are used by other projects >>> (transaction manager, batchEE, etc). So they need a home. Of course we can >>> split them apart and give them to different projects, but it does not solve >>> any problem. The people are the same. As soon as we allow all projects to >>> contribute or even become committers here, I don't see any issue at the >>> moment at least. >>> >>> Le mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 10:53, Mark Struberg via dev < >>> dev@geronimo.apache.org> a écrit : >>> >>>> *Overall I don't understand the recent discussions to kill all Geronimo >>>> projects and subprojects.* >>>> >>>> *+1* >>>> >>>> Actually I'd rather keep it here as it is used outside TomEE as well. >>>> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 23.11.2022 um 10:15 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com >>>> >: >>>> >>>> I've opened a thread on the TomEE side to maybe transition BatchEE to >>>> TomEE. >>>> >>>> *Overall I don't understand the recent discussions to kill all Geronimo >>>> projects and subprojects.* >>>> >>>> Le mar. 22 nov. 2022 à 23:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> No requirement, just making it living (updating versions and spec >>>>> impl). >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 22 nov. 2022 à 23:31, Mark Struberg via dev < >>>>> dev@geronimo.apache.org> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> I still use batchee very much. So I'd keep it well alive. Also >>>>>> investing time on and on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there anything which is required to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> LieGrue, >>>>>> strub >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 18.11.2022 um 09:50 schrieb Francois Papon < >>>>>> francois.pa...@openobject.fr>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have insights about how BatchEE is used today and how the >>>>>> jbatch specification is support by others. >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 for freeze. >>>>>> >>>>>> regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> François >>>>>> On 18/11/2022 08:21, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> We discussed some time ago to drop batchee as an active subproject, >>>>>> wonder where we are now on this? >>>>>> Do we freeze it and document we don't maintain it anymore? >>>>>> >>>>>> 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> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jean-Louis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Louis >>> >> >> > > -- > Jean-Louis >
