IMO we should deliver it as many people using containers (docker, kubernetes, ...) and then microprofile health is "almost required".
Maybe we should just rethink which distros we build per default. IMO we might not even need Plume or Webprofile. Webprofile just safes around 10mb. Im not sure if anyone cares about 10mb today. If the startup time is much slower, thats what is interesting here. We would need to check the difference. The difference of Plume is that it delivers EclipseLink and Mojarra. Why do we have this - because to allow users easily migrate to TomEE. Did this ever happen? - MyFaces is more stable as Mojarra - we are just not bug compatible, this prevents users from using MyFaces as they dont want to fix their code. - EclipseLink is more up2date and more widely used as OpenJPA. Maybe this argument is not valid anymore if we would just deliver EclipseLink or Hibernate per default, which is now possible with the license change. I have never seen anyone using TomEE with JPA, but not replacing OpenJPA by Hibernate or EclipseLink. Maybe we can just have 2 profiles: TomEE (Full + MicroProfile) TomEE Lite (Full without Microprofile) We can easily add some docs where users can e.g. replace Hibernate with EclipseLink or just remove unused impls; but not deliver it as own distro. Am Di., 15. Apr. 2025 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org >: > Short clarifications: > > - This is _not_ a vote. It is a discussion thread to get opinions / > different views :-) > - I am not the chair of TomEE ;-) > > On a technical note: > > - We would still deliver TomEE MicroProfile with all its features. > > > Am 15.04.2025 um 10:10 schrieb Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com>: > > > > Hello Richard, > > > > [-1] for removing Microprofile from OOB TomEE 10.* > > > > Indeed: > > 1. From a semantic versionning standpoint, it is not possible to > > introduce a breaking change, so the earliest possible release to do > > such major change would be TomEE 11 > > 2. Competing applications servers (Payara, OpenLiberty, JBoss,...) > > seem to have OOTB MicroProfile support > > 3. MicroProfile is often quoted as "the incubator for potential new > > specifications [of Jakarta EE...]" (quoted from > > > https://blog.sebastian-daschner.com/entries/microprofiles-role-jakarta-ee > ). > > > > This last point is the key reason why I disagree with removing > > MicroProfile from TomEE: enthousiatics developers willing to take > > advantage of those ahead-of-time features brought by MicroProfile will > > be less eager to use TomEE if MicroProfile isn't anymore part of it. > > They most likely they'll fall into other application servers' hands. > > > > That said, I welcome your initiative to cast such vote : your are > > playing your role as TomEE's PMC chairman, which is to inspire the > > future of this great community, with the democratic way to exchange on > > ideas. I will love seeying counter-arguments to my reply, and I'm sure > > that the more answers this proposal will get (whatever the final > > outcome will be), the healtiest TomEE community will be! > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > Le lun. 14 avr. 2025 à 10:07, Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> a écrit > : > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Starting with TomEE 10.0.x, we've included MicroProfile 6.0 along with > all the necessary OpenTelemetry classes and libraries. > >> > >> From what I've seen, many libraries—such as JDBC drivers—automatically > enable OTEL features when the relevant libraries are present on the > classpath, regardless of any MicroProfile configuration settings. > >> > >> This puts us in a tricky position: we’re often forced to stick with > older library versions because upgrading from MP 6.0 to 6.1 tends to > introduce breaking changes. Moreover, MP 7 can only be supported once CXF > provides a compatible client, which is currently being targeted for Jakarta > EE 11. > >> > >> Given this, I’d like to propose dropping the (de-activated) > MicroProfile support from the Web, Plus, and Plume distributions—meaning we > would no longer include the MP-related JARs by default. Instead, we could > offer an optional script-based approach (e.g., via a zip/tar.gz package) > that users can apply to add the MicroProfile flavor to Web/Plus/Plume as > needed. > >> > >> Since this would be a breaking change, we could aim to roll it out > starting with version 10.1.x. > >> > >> WDYT? Any thoughts? > >> > >> Gruß > >> Richard > >
