Hi guys,
Thank you for the feedback.
Yeah, I've done everything on TomEE 7, since there is no MP version that
targets the new specs of Java EE 8. There one in the roadmap, MP 2.0, but I
think it is not released yet.
So I would guess, by doing all the work in TomEE 8, we would not be compliant
with MP < 2.x.
Cheers,Roberto
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 8:40:47 PM GMT, Mark Struberg
<strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote:
Hi David!
Yea that would also work - at least mp-config, mp-failsafe and mp-jwt.
mp-rest-client is CXF-3.2.2 and thus really based on EE8 features.
BUT: that would make TomEE7 only run on Java8 (The various mp-specs require
Java8 as minimum Java version).
So this would imo at least require a version bump to TomEE-7.1.x and officially
dropping Java7 support.
For me this would be fine, but I just want to point out this impact
LieGrue,strub
On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 21:34:13 CET, David Blevins
<david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote:
In addition to TomEE 8. I wonder if we could create a TomEE 7.1 that would be
effectively Java EE 7, Java 8 and MicroProfile.
Effectively, MP 1.0 to 1.3 is Java EE 7 on Java 8. I did some investigation
and Wildfly for example is Java EE 7 compliant and only works on Java 8, not
Java 7, so it appears we could do it.
The "resources" argument is certainly a con, but the pros would be it would be
based on a stable codebase and people could put TomEE's MP integrations into
production ASAP. Our Java EE 7 support is 96% compliant, our Java EE 8 support
is much further off.
Thoughts?
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yep, working on tomez8 is the safer way ATM.
>
> Now MP will only increase tomee size and not slim things down since
> trimming tomee is quickly stopped if you start from the web profile cause
> all is deeply integrated in configfactory, assembler and builders classes
> ATM.
>
> Not a blocker but dont get wrong hopes right now ;).
>
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 19:57, "Mark Struberg" <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Roberto!
> The CXF part is a non-issue as we target TomEE8. So it's just a drop-in and
> it will work fine as well.
> And thanks for looking at this!
> I suggest we start with adding the APIs and libs and also add the TCKs for
> those under ./tck/microprofile/config, ...
>
> LieGrue,strub
>
> On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:49:20 CET, Roberto Cortez
> <radcor...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP
> implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-
> safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to
> set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
