> 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional 
technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a MicroProfile 
BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what the MP 
specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or Hammock! But 
does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight than 9MB, but in most 
cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.

For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
* if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also need CDI 
and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA, JAX-WS, EJB, etc -> 
use TomEE
After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those projects 
    On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau 
<rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 Hi Gurkan,

All has clarified after your mail:

1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
itself!), name is not even on the website.
3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)

So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
checked out the projects IMHO.

Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
a écrit :

 Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
(or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this



    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <bruno...@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:


Can we assume that from now on?

In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a


Bruno Baptista

On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez 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.
> 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,
> 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

Reply via email to