2018-02-22 9:27 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
> My only comment from past experiences is that when you start with if you
> need X, pick Y, if you need A, pick B, etc ... is that it never really
> Here is my observations:
> - Only few people can make this call, and even less can make it right.
> - Projects sometimes increase scoping implying that people are tempted to
> get the bigger swiss knife to be safe
> - Usually companies prefer one size fits all because it's easier to share
> knowledge, tools, devops and overall experience
> When transposing to OSS, it's easier for a company to support one project
> that 3 or 4.
> The fact they use reuse some parts is a technical detail most people won't
> get or won't care about in my opinion.
Was there ~5 years ago but applications types changed a lot last 3-4 years
(at least I didn't notice it before) and having a minimal HTTP server and
an all in one is
actually pretty relevant today.
I got this kind of feedback offline too saying that meecrowave is really
great for custom apps or not standard usages/backends (this is what I do
now and I share that)
but that TomEE is great for "highway" apps since all is already setup.
There really are space for both and what is great is that contributing to
one is 80% of the time contributing to both since the glue code if
meecrowave is pretty much nothing
so you contribute to the stack which is the same for both, win-win for
Clearly just my experience but think even Java can't say there is one fits
all anymore today.
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>
> > > 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 server.
> > 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
> > 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,
> > EJB, etc -> use TomEE
> > After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> > anyway.
> > LieGrue,strub
> > 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.
> > 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
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
> > e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
> > CheersGurkan
> > 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:
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard
> > Can we assume that from now on?
> > In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined
> > 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
> > tomee-mp.
> > Cheers
> > Bruno Baptista
> > http://twitter.com/brunobat_
> > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work,
> > > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to
> > > 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
> > >