[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openejb-development
Subject:    Re: [DISCUSSION] Completing Jakarta EE 8 and MicroProfile 3.0: 8.0.x or 8.1.x?
From:       "Jonathan S. Fisher" <exabrial () gmail ! com>
Date:       2019-09-23 17:15:31
Message-ID: CAJAC5ugV-Eqa380XGKexvQtOBQP2XGM5qW4jiXC7iWzOQig4Yw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


I suggest sticking to semvar as much as possible. So an intentional API
break change should be 9.x.x in that case.  For Jakarta EE compliance work,
8.1.x would be my vote, as the changes should be backward compatible.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 6:48 PM David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> We need to do some announcements around TomEE 8 as well as put up some
> documentation on its general status.
>
> This email is more discussion than anything else.
>
> Jakarta EE 8 status.  TomEE 8.0.0 is to my understanding about 90%
> complete with the Web Profile.  Open question is where do we want to do the
> work to finish Jakarta EE 8 compliance?  In the past discussions (2 years
> ago), there was a preference to kick out TomEE 7 not certified and aim at a
> 7.1 for certification.  We didn't end up getting the Java EE 7 TCK, but do
> we want to follow this path for Jakarta EE 8? (leave 8.0.x stable fixes
> only, do compliance work in a future 8.1?).  That would mean trunk would
> most likely need to updated to 8.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
>
> MicroProfile status.  TomEE 8.0.0 is MicroProfile 2.1 compliant.  Making
> it MicroProfile 3.0 compliant involves a major upgrade from OpenTracing 1.x
> to 2.x and a breaking change to update to MicroProfile Metrics 2.x.  Do we
> want to do this in 8.0.x or push this in an 8.1.x? (as noted above, would
> most likely mean we need to update trunk to 8.1.0-SNAPSHOT).
>
> Trimming the MicroProfile distribution?  I raised the topic of potentially
> cutting the dedicated MicroProfile distribution down a good 20MB.  If we
> did this, it would definitely not go into a stable release (8.0.x) and
> probably have to be pushed into a 8.1.x.
>
> Two questions:
>
>  - Do you like the above proposed changes?  Anything else that should be
> done?
>  - Do we want to push forward doing them all in 8.0.x or do we want to do
> 8.1.x, (and potentially 8.2.x if everything is not all done at the same
> time).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>

-- 
Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
full.
Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
be.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]