TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
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
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Romain Manni-Bucau
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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

David Blevins-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>> 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
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Romain Manni-Bucau
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>> 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
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

David Blevins-2
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 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?


--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

> On May 1, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> 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
>>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]
>:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

David Blevins-2
Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email replies come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to read both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.

I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by taking care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.


--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

> On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]
>> :
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Romain Manni-Bucau
Just take this one:

"
Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is cool.
And I fully support that.
"

Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very
closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against creating a
branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
something affecting users+being justified technically.
I don't think we got here yet.
Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?". First
answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and last
one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.



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>

2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:

> Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email replies
> come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to read
> both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
>
> I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
> reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by taking
> care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> >> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> >> :
> >>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Mark Struberg-2
Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done?

We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a branch and move TomEE8 to master.

I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1.
Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches shipped? I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the work alone. Or rather it will take a bit time then.
And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0.
 
So please less talking, more hacking.

txs and LieGrue,
strub


    On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 Just take this one:

"
Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is cool.
And I fully support that.
"

Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very
closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against creating a
branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
something affecting users+being justified technically.
I don't think we got here yet.
Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?". First
answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and last
one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.



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>

2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:

> Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email replies
> come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to read
> both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
>
> I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
> reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by taking
> care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> >> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> >> :
> >>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
>
>  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

jgallimore
I submitted a PR for Johnzon, and owe some JIRA references. I don't think
it has been merged yet. I'm definitely not expecting you or Romain to do
the work alone. Thanks for the OWB releases!

Jon

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done?
>
> We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a branch
> and move TomEE8 to master.
>
> I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1.
> Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches shipped?
> I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the work alone. Or
> rather it will take a bit time then.
> And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0.
>
> So please less talking, more hacking.
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>     On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Just take this one:
>
> "
> Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is cool.
> And I fully support that.
> "
>
> Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very
> closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against creating a
> branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
> something affecting users+being justified technically.
> I don't think we got here yet.
> Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?". First
> answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and last
> one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.
>
>
>
> 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>
>
> 2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email
> replies
> > come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to
> read
> > both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
> >
> > I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
> > reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by taking
> > care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > > On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > >> :
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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
> > >>>>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

jgallimore
Here's the PR for reference: https://github.com/apache/johnzon/pull/21

Romain gave it a thumbs-up. I'll try and get those JIRA references today.

Jon

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Gallimore <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I submitted a PR for Johnzon, and owe some JIRA references. I don't think
> it has been merged yet. I'm definitely not expecting you or Romain to do
> the work alone. Thanks for the OWB releases!
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done?
>>
>> We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a
>> branch and move TomEE8 to master.
>>
>> I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1.
>> Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches
>> shipped? I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the work
>> alone. Or rather it will take a bit time then.
>> And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0.
>>
>> So please less talking, more hacking.
>>
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>     On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  Just take this one:
>>
>> "
>> Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is cool.
>> And I fully support that.
>> "
>>
>> Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very
>> closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against creating a
>> branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
>> something affecting users+being justified technically.
>> I don't think we got here yet.
>> Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?". First
>> answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and last
>> one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> 2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email
>> replies
>> > come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to
>> read
>> > both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
>> >
>> > I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
>> > reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by taking
>> > care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > David Blevins
>> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> > http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >
>> > > On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > >> 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 <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > >> :
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> 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
>> > >>>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Mark Struberg-2
Hell yes, this damn GitHub PRs. Totally splits the communities.
Either it spams us or we loose information :(

I'm all for keeping our stuff on JIRA and our own mailing lists.

Will look at it and apply it.
We need JIRA tickets nonetheless. Otherwise we cannot craft any release notes.

What I did for OWB-1.7.5 is to just add this version to the original tickets.
So if you only backported existing JIRA tickets, then please do me a favour and add the 1.0.1 version to them.

txs and LieGure,
strub

> Am 04.05.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <[hidden email]>:
>
> Here's the PR for reference: https://github.com/apache/johnzon/pull/21
>
> Romain gave it a thumbs-up. I'll try and get those JIRA references today.
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I submitted a PR for Johnzon, and owe some JIRA references. I don't think
>> it has been merged yet. I'm definitely not expecting you or Romain to do
>> the work alone. Thanks for the OWB releases!
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done?
>>>
>>> We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a
>>> branch and move TomEE8 to master.
>>>
>>> I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1.
>>> Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches
>>> shipped? I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the work
>>> alone. Or rather it will take a bit time then.
>>> And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0.
>>>
>>> So please less talking, more hacking.
>>>
>>> txs and LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>    On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just take this one:
>>>
>>> "
>>> Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is cool.
>>> And I fully support that.
>>> "
>>>
>>> Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very
>>> closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against creating a
>>> branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
>>> something affecting users+being justified technically.
>>> I don't think we got here yet.
>>> Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?". First
>>> answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and last
>>> one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>> 2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email
>>> replies
>>>> come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to
>>> read
>>>> both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
>>>>
>>>> I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
>>>> reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by taking
>>>> care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David Blevins
>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>>> On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

jgallimore
I took the approach Romain suggested, but I completely agree with the JIRA
for release notes, so I'll get those sorted out. Thanks Mark!

Jon

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hell yes, this damn GitHub PRs. Totally splits the communities.
> Either it spams us or we loose information :(
>
> I'm all for keeping our stuff on JIRA and our own mailing lists.
>
> Will look at it and apply it.
> We need JIRA tickets nonetheless. Otherwise we cannot craft any release
> notes.
>
> What I did for OWB-1.7.5 is to just add this version to the original
> tickets.
> So if you only backported existing JIRA tickets, then please do me a
> favour and add the 1.0.1 version to them.
>
> txs and LieGure,
> strub
>
> > Am 04.05.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> [hidden email]>:
> >
> > Here's the PR for reference: https://github.com/apache/johnzon/pull/21
> >
> > Romain gave it a thumbs-up. I'll try and get those JIRA references today.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I submitted a PR for Johnzon, and owe some JIRA references. I don't
> think
> >> it has been merged yet. I'm definitely not expecting you or Romain to do
> >> the work alone. Thanks for the OWB releases!
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg
> <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done?
> >>>
> >>> We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a
> >>> branch and move TomEE8 to master.
> >>>
> >>> I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1.
> >>> Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches
> >>> shipped? I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the
> work
> >>> alone. Or rather it will take a bit time then.
> >>> And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0.
> >>>
> >>> So please less talking, more hacking.
> >>>
> >>> txs and LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Just take this one:
> >>>
> >>> "
> >>> Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is
> cool.
> >>> And I fully support that.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".
> >>>
> >>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very
> >>> closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against
> creating a
> >>> branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
> >>> something affecting users+being justified technically.
> >>> I don't think we got here yet.
> >>> Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?".
> First
> >>> answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and
> last
> >>> one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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>
> >>>
> >>> 2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
> >>>
> >>>> Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email
> >>> replies
> >>>> come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to
> >>> read
> >>>> both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
> >>>> reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by
> taking
> >>>> care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> David Blevins
> >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>>>> On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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 <
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Romain Manni-Bucau
guess we can just use the master release note since the last release and
drop the spec N+1 items no?
+1 to get it merged (I'd appreciate if Mark can give a shot before since it
is a big one but looked ok and well working on my side)


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>

2018-05-04 12:11 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <[hidden email]>
:

> I took the approach Romain suggested, but I completely agree with the JIRA
> for release notes, so I'll get those sorted out. Thanks Mark!
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hell yes, this damn GitHub PRs. Totally splits the communities.
> > Either it spams us or we loose information :(
> >
> > I'm all for keeping our stuff on JIRA and our own mailing lists.
> >
> > Will look at it and apply it.
> > We need JIRA tickets nonetheless. Otherwise we cannot craft any release
> > notes.
> >
> > What I did for OWB-1.7.5 is to just add this version to the original
> > tickets.
> > So if you only backported existing JIRA tickets, then please do me a
> > favour and add the 1.0.1 version to them.
> >
> > txs and LieGure,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 04.05.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Here's the PR for reference: https://github.com/apache/johnzon/pull/21
> > >
> > > Romain gave it a thumbs-up. I'll try and get those JIRA references
> today.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I submitted a PR for Johnzon, and owe some JIRA references. I don't
> > think
> > >> it has been merged yet. I'm definitely not expecting you or Romain to
> do
> > >> the work alone. Thanks for the OWB releases!
> > >>
> > >> Jon
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg
> > <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done?
> > >>>
> > >>> We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a
> > >>> branch and move TomEE8 to master.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1.
> > >>> Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches
> > >>> shipped? I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the
> > work
> > >>> alone. Or rather it will take a bit time then.
> > >>> And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> So please less talking, more hacking.
> > >>>
> > >>> txs and LieGrue,
> > >>> strub
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Just take this one:
> > >>>
> > >>> "
> > >>> Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is
> > cool.
> > >>> And I fully support that.
> > >>> "
> > >>>
> > >>> Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".
> > >>>
> > >>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something
> very
> > >>> closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against
> > creating a
> > >>> branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
> > >>> something affecting users+being justified technically.
> > >>> I don't think we got here yet.
> > >>> Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?".
> > First
> > >>> answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and
> > last
> > >>> one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email
> > >>> replies
> > >>>> come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is
> to
> > >>> read
> > >>>> both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
> > >>>> reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by
> > taking
> > >>>> care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> David Blevins
> > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > [hidden email]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > >>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> 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 <
> > >>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE 7.1.x with Microprofile

Alex The Rocker
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg-2
Enormous +1 for Mark's suggestion (i.e., TomEE 7.0.5 focus before
releasing anything else) :)

Alexandre


2018-05-04 11:43 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:

> Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done?
>
> We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a branch and move TomEE8 to master.
>
> I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1.
> Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches shipped? I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the work alone. Or rather it will take a bit time then.
> And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0.
>
> So please less talking, more hacking.
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>     On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Just take this one:
>
> "
> Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is cool.
> And I fully support that.
> "
>
> Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP".
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very
> closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against creating a
> branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by
> something affecting users+being justified technically.
> I don't think we got here yet.
> Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?". First
> answer is clearly "no impact" - we  are already in prod with j8 - and last
> one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK.
>
>
>
> 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>
>
> 2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor?  Sometimes your email replies
>> come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to read
>> both the old and new emails and do a mental diff.
>>
>> I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my
>> reading speed is very impaired regardless.  If you can help me by taking
>> care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative.
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>> > On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
>> >
>> >> 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>> >> :
>> >>>
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>>
>>
>>