Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit :
We can certainly continue discussing, but there have been 7.1 discussions including people like Rudy, Jean-Louis and Jonathan volunteering on list to work on a 7.1. Mark raising some questions and chiming in with "I fully support that." This is likely reading only the part you wanted ;). Mark always put some conditions to that, JL doesnt care much from what i read and to play the same "finger in the wind" game I think Rudy - correct me if Im wrong - would support any technical solution leading to a mp distro. This is finger-in-the-wind observation of positive response and certainly there is still room for other feedback. What would you recommend we do from here? First we need to clearly state what is the difference between a 7.1 and 8. All i read was a half baked 8 (so 8 from our last months discussions) or a 7+mp which doesnt work if we want to do a 7+some ee 8. MP not driving tomee by design (and it is good), it shouldnt imply any versioning to stay consistent for end users. Technically we can do a mp distro on tomee 7.0 (using toolchain) and/or tomee 8.0 (natively). Keep in mind it is as minor for the project as the plume distro - we can even do a "all permutations distro" update on 7.0 and 8.0. It is far to modify the project nature, goal or codebase. Once we know what we want to bring then we can go through the standard process of a vote if people disagree or just move forward. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On May 1, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Which leads to the same David, no? > There is no decision taken and no real argument - before your mail - for a > 7.1. > Either there are too much off list discussions or we should better handle > thread outcomes cause ATM, if you follow the list, discussions and acts are > not consistent :(. > > Le 1 mai 2018 21:24, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > I've only ever seen feedback of the nature that if people were willing to > do the extra 7.1 work in addition to the TomEE 8 work, it wasn't a problem. > > Note, just got off the MicroProfile hangout and there we've proposed to > doing both a MicroProfile 1.4 and MicroProfile 2.0 release on June 6th. > The release contents would be the same with the exception of the minimum > Java EE version; 1.4 will remain at Java EE 7 and MicroProfile 2.0 will be > Java EE 8. Work would probably shift to MicroProfile 2.x afterwards, > though future MicroProfile 1.x releases could happen if component specs > want to continue to cater to Java EE 7 or don't have any Java EE dependency > at all. That means MicroProfile will officially have two streams: > > - MicroProfile 1.x, Java EE 7, (potential TomEE 7.1) > - MicroProfile 2.x, Java EE 8/Jakarta EE 8, TomEE 8 > > > -- > David Blevins > http://twitter.com/dblevins > http://www.tomitribe.com > >> On Apr 30, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hmm, can have missed something but didnt the outcome of the thread have >> been to work in tomee 8 branch (always better to avoid merges ;))? >> >> >> 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> >> >> 2018-04-30 16:34 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[email protected] >: >> >>> Hi community, >>> >>> I have created a branch based on current master (aka TomEE 7.0.x) as >>> discussed a while back. >>> >>> I have backported the microprofile JWT work from TomEE 8 branch. >>> The branch is https://github.com/jeanouii/tomee/tree/microprofile_ > backport >>> I have pushed what I have currently in there. I'll need to test more >>> deeply. >>> >>> JLouis >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>>
