TomEE and MicroProfile

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TomEE and MicroProfile

Roberto Cortez
Hi guys,
I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config. Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine. If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner. 
MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support MP 1.3.
Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,Roberto
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Mark Struberg-2
Hi Roberto!
The CXF part is a non-issue as we target TomEE8. So it's just a drop-in and it will work fine as well.
And thanks for looking at this!
I suggest we start with adding the APIs and libs and also add the TCKs for those under ./tck/microprofile/config, ...

LieGrue,strub

    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:49:20 CET, Roberto Cortez <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 Hi guys,
I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config. Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine. If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner. 
MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support MP 1.3.
Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,Roberto  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Romain Manni-Bucau
Yep, working on tomez8 is the safer way ATM.

Now MP will only increase tomee size and not slim things down since
trimming tomee is quickly stopped if you start from the web profile cause
all is deeply integrated in configfactory, assembler and builders classes
ATM.

Not a blocker but dont get wrong hopes right now ;).


Le 21 févr. 2018 19:57, "Mark Struberg" <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

Hi Roberto!
The CXF part is a non-issue as we target TomEE8. So it's just a drop-in and
it will work fine as well.
And thanks for looking at this!
I suggest we start with adding the APIs and libs and also add the TCKs for
those under ./tck/microprofile/config, ...

LieGrue,strub

    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:49:20 CET, Roberto Cortez
<[hidden email]> wrote:

 Hi guys,
I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP
implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-
safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to
set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
MP 1.3.
Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,Roberto
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

David Blevins-2
In addition to TomEE 8.  I wonder if we could create a TomEE 7.1 that would be effectively Java EE 7, Java 8 and MicroProfile.

Effectively, MP 1.0 to 1.3 is Java EE 7 on Java 8.  I did some investigation and Wildfly for example is Java EE 7 compliant and only works on Java 8, not Java 7, so it appears we could do it.

The "resources" argument is certainly a con, but the pros would be it would be based on a stable codebase and people could put TomEE's MP integrations into production ASAP.  Our Java EE 7 support is 96% compliant, our Java EE 8 support is much further off.

Thoughts?


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

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yep, working on tomez8 is the safer way ATM.
>
> Now MP will only increase tomee size and not slim things down since
> trimming tomee is quickly stopped if you start from the web profile cause
> all is deeply integrated in configfactory, assembler and builders classes
> ATM.
>
> Not a blocker but dont get wrong hopes right now ;).
>
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 19:57, "Mark Struberg" <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Roberto!
> The CXF part is a non-issue as we target TomEE8. So it's just a drop-in and
> it will work fine as well.
> And thanks for looking at this!
> I suggest we start with adding the APIs and libs and also add the TCKs for
> those under ./tck/microprofile/config, ...
>
> LieGrue,strub
>
>    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:49:20 CET, Roberto Cortez
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP
> implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-
> safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to
> set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Mark Struberg-2
 Hi David!
Yea that would also work - at least mp-config, mp-failsafe and mp-jwt. mp-rest-client is CXF-3.2.2 and thus really based on EE8 features.
BUT: that would make TomEE7 only run on Java8 (The various mp-specs require Java8 as minimum Java version).
So this would imo at least require a version bump to TomEE-7.1.x and officially dropping Java7 support.
For me this would be fine, but I just want to point out this impact

LieGrue,strub
    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 21:34:13 CET, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 In addition to TomEE 8.  I wonder if we could create a TomEE 7.1 that would be effectively Java EE 7, Java 8 and MicroProfile.

Effectively, MP 1.0 to 1.3 is Java EE 7 on Java 8.  I did some investigation and Wildfly for example is Java EE 7 compliant and only works on Java 8, not Java 7, so it appears we could do it.

The "resources" argument is certainly a con, but the pros would be it would be based on a stable codebase and people could put TomEE's MP integrations into production ASAP.  Our Java EE 7 support is 96% compliant, our Java EE 8 support is much further off.

Thoughts?


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

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yep, working on tomez8 is the safer way ATM.
>
> Now MP will only increase tomee size and not slim things down since
> trimming tomee is quickly stopped if you start from the web profile cause
> all is deeply integrated in configfactory, assembler and builders classes
> ATM.
>
> Not a blocker but dont get wrong hopes right now ;).
>
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 19:57, "Mark Struberg" <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Roberto!
> The CXF part is a non-issue as we target TomEE8. So it's just a drop-in and
> it will work fine as well.
> And thanks for looking at this!
> I suggest we start with adding the APIs and libs and also add the TCKs for
> those under ./tck/microprofile/config, ...
>
> LieGrue,strub
>
>    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:49:20 CET, Roberto Cortez
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP
> implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-
> safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to
> set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Roberto Cortez
 
Hi guys,
Thank you for the feedback.
Yeah, I've done everything on TomEE 7, since there is no MP version that targets the new specs of Java EE 8. There one in the roadmap, MP 2.0, but I think it is not released yet.
So I would guess, by doing all the work in TomEE 8, we would not be compliant with MP < 2.x.
Cheers,Roberto

    On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 8:40:47 PM GMT, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
  Hi David!
Yea that would also work - at least mp-config, mp-failsafe and mp-jwt. mp-rest-client is CXF-3.2.2 and thus really based on EE8 features.
BUT: that would make TomEE7 only run on Java8 (The various mp-specs require Java8 as minimum Java version).
So this would imo at least require a version bump to TomEE-7.1.x and officially dropping Java7 support.
For me this would be fine, but I just want to point out this impact

LieGrue,strub
    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 21:34:13 CET, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote: 
 
 In addition to TomEE 8.  I wonder if we could create a TomEE 7.1 that would be effectively Java EE 7, Java 8 and MicroProfile.

Effectively, MP 1.0 to 1.3 is Java EE 7 on Java 8.  I did some investigation and Wildfly for example is Java EE 7 compliant and only works on Java 8, not Java 7, so it appears we could do it.

The "resources" argument is certainly a con, but the pros would be it would be based on a stable codebase and people could put TomEE's MP integrations into production ASAP.  Our Java EE 7 support is 96% compliant, our Java EE 8 support is much further off.

Thoughts?


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

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yep, working on tomez8 is the safer way ATM.
>
> Now MP will only increase tomee size and not slim things down since
> trimming tomee is quickly stopped if you start from the web profile cause
> all is deeply integrated in configfactory, assembler and builders classes
> ATM.
>
> Not a blocker but dont get wrong hopes right now ;).
>
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 19:57, "Mark Struberg" <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Roberto!
> The CXF part is a non-issue as we target TomEE8. So it's just a drop-in and
> it will work fine as well.
> And thanks for looking at this!
> I suggest we start with adding the APIs and libs and also add the TCKs for
> those under ./tck/microprofile/config, ...
>
> LieGrue,strub
>
>    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:49:20 CET, Roberto Cortez
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP
> implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-
> safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to
> set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
   
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Romain Manni-Bucau
Asked some month ago if we can drop java 7 from tomee 7 since it is no more
maintained and doesnt prevent certification so rather for. That said I
think that with tomee 8 coming the gain stays poor compared to base a
distro on tomee 8 directly which enables way more on user side (cdi 2 is a
killer).



Le 21 févr. 2018 21:53, "Roberto Cortez" <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

>
> Hi guys,
> Thank you for the feedback.
> Yeah, I've done everything on TomEE 7, since there is no MP version that
> targets the new specs of Java EE 8. There one in the roadmap, MP 2.0, but I
> think it is not released yet.
> So I would guess, by doing all the work in TomEE 8, we would not be
> compliant with MP < 2.x.
> Cheers,Roberto
>
>     On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 8:40:47 PM GMT, Mark Struberg
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>   Hi David!
> Yea that would also work - at least mp-config, mp-failsafe and mp-jwt.
> mp-rest-client is CXF-3.2.2 and thus really based on EE8 features.
> BUT: that would make TomEE7 only run on Java8 (The various mp-specs
> require Java8 as minimum Java version).
> So this would imo at least require a version bump to TomEE-7.1.x and
> officially dropping Java7 support.
> For me this would be fine, but I just want to point out this impact
>
> LieGrue,strub
>     On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 21:34:13 CET, David Blevins <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  In addition to TomEE 8.  I wonder if we could create a TomEE 7.1 that
> would be effectively Java EE 7, Java 8 and MicroProfile.
>
> Effectively, MP 1.0 to 1.3 is Java EE 7 on Java 8.  I did some
> investigation and Wildfly for example is Java EE 7 compliant and only works
> on Java 8, not Java 7, so it appears we could do it.
>
> The "resources" argument is certainly a con, but the pros would be it
> would be based on a stable codebase and people could put TomEE's MP
> integrations into production ASAP.  Our Java EE 7 support is 96% compliant,
> our Java EE 8 support is much further off.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yep, working on tomez8 is the safer way ATM.
> >
> > Now MP will only increase tomee size and not slim things down since
> > trimming tomee is quickly stopped if you start from the web profile cause
> > all is deeply integrated in configfactory, assembler and builders classes
> > ATM.
> >
> > Not a blocker but dont get wrong hopes right now ;).
> >
> >
> > Le 21 févr. 2018 19:57, "Mark Struberg" <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > Hi Roberto!
> > The CXF part is a non-issue as we target TomEE8. So it's just a drop-in
> and
> > it will work fine as well.
> > And thanks for looking at this!
> > I suggest we start with adding the APIs and libs and also add the TCKs
> for
> > those under ./tck/microprofile/config, ...
> >
> > LieGrue,strub
> >
> >    On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, 19:49:20 CET, Roberto Cortez
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> > I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> MP
> > implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> > MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/
> geronimo-config.
> > Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> > MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-
> > safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to
> > set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> > to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> > safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just
> fine.
> > If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> > required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> > MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> > issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> > look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> > 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> > doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
> I've
> > also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> > MP 1.3.
> > Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> > I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE
> flavour
> > with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> > Any thoughts?
> > Cheers,Roberto
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

brunobat
In reply to this post by Roberto Cortez
Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:

https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard

Can we assume that from now on?
Cheers

Bruno Baptista
http://twitter.com/brunobat_


On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config. Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine. If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:

https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard

Can we assume that from now on?


In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
tomee-mp.

Cheers

Bruno Baptista
http://twitter.com/brunobat_



On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:

> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Gurkan Erdogdu-3
 Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules) in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfce29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E

CheersGurkan



    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:

https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard

Can we assume that from now on?


In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
tomee-mp.

Cheers

Bruno Baptista
http://twitter.com/brunobat_



On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:

> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
>  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi Gurkan,

All has clarified after your mail:

1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
itself!), name is not even on the website.
3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)

So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
checked out the projects IMHO.

Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email]>
a écrit :

 Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
(or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E

CheersGurkan



    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
[hidden email]> wrote:

 Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:

https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard

Can we assume that from now on?


In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
tomee-mp.

Cheers

Bruno Baptista
http://twitter.com/brunobat_



On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:

> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
I've

> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Mark Struberg-2
In reply to this post by Gurkan Erdogdu-3
the
And here is the reply which (again) should clarify all those questions:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/87a7c22ba3ba8abd44220664aacd4bc4a640b2af45a34da44858d37b@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E 

Meecrowave is _not_ duplicating TomEE. TomEE is based on the app assembler which is in turn heavily based on OpenEJB and all the other integrated technologies like JMS, etc.Meecrowave has been there as tomcat boot module almost ever since OWB existed. It's kind of the totally inverse approach. It is tomcat + CDI centric and uses CDI to integrate all the other technologies as plug&play.

LieGrue,strub

    On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:43:55 CET, Gurkan Erdogdu <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
  Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules) in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfce29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E

CheersGurkan



    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: 
 
 Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:

https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard

Can we assume that from now on?


In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
tomee-mp.

Cheers

Bruno Baptista
http://twitter.com/brunobat_



On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:

> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround, I've
> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
>   
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Mark Struberg-2
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
 > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a MicroProfile server.
BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight than 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.


For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
* if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA, JAX-WS, EJB, etc -> use TomEE
After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those projects anyway.
LieGrue,strub
    On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 Hi Gurkan,

All has clarified after your mail:

1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
itself!), name is not even on the website.
3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)

So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
checked out the projects IMHO.

Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email]>
a écrit :

 Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
(or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E

CheersGurkan



    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
[hidden email]> wrote:

 Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:

https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard

Can we assume that from now on?


In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
tomee-mp.

Cheers

Bruno Baptista
http://twitter.com/brunobat_



On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:

> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
I've

> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
>  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
My only comment from past experiences is that when you start with if you
need X, pick Y, if you need A, pick B, etc ... is that it never really
works.

Here is my observations:
- Only few people can make this call, and even less can make it right.
- Projects sometimes increase scoping implying that people are tempted to
get the bigger swiss knife to be safe
- Usually companies prefer one size fits all because it's easier to share
knowledge, tools, devops and overall experience

When transposing to OSS, it's easier for a company to support one project
that 3 or 4.

The fact they use reuse some parts is a technical detail most people won't
get or won't care about in my opinion.



--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>  > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional
> technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a
> MicroProfile server.
> BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what
> the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or
> Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight than
> 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.
>
>
> For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
> * if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also
> need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA, JAX-WS,
> EJB, etc -> use TomEE
> After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those projects
> anyway.
> LieGrue,strub
>     On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Hi Gurkan,
>
> All has clarified after your mail:
>
> 1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
> 2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
> itself!), name is not even on the website.
> 3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
> 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
>
> So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
> checked out the projects IMHO.
>
> Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email]>
> a écrit :
>
>  Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
> (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
> Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
> point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
> in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
> belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
> e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
>
> CheersGurkan
>
>
>
>     On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Hi All,
> Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard
>
> Can we assume that from now on?
>
>
> In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
> safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
> classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
> tomee-mp.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bruno Baptista
> http://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
>
> On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> > I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> > MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> > MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/
> geronimo-config
> .
> > Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> > MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> > .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> > and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
> enrichment.prefixes
> > to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> > safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just
> fine.
> > If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> > required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> > MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> > issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> > look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> > 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> > doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
> I've
> > also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> > MP 1.3.
> > Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> > I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE
> flavour
> > with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> > Any thoughts?
> > Cheers,Roberto
> >
>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Romain Manni-Bucau
2018-02-22 9:27 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <[hidden email]>:

> My only comment from past experiences is that when you start with if you
> need X, pick Y, if you need A, pick B, etc ... is that it never really
> works.
>
> Here is my observations:
> - Only few people can make this call, and even less can make it right.
> - Projects sometimes increase scoping implying that people are tempted to
> get the bigger swiss knife to be safe
> - Usually companies prefer one size fits all because it's easier to share
> knowledge, tools, devops and overall experience
>
> When transposing to OSS, it's easier for a company to support one project
> that 3 or 4.
>
> The fact they use reuse some parts is a technical detail most people won't
> get or won't care about in my opinion.
>
>
>
Was there ~5 years ago but applications types changed a lot last 3-4 years
(at least I didn't notice it before) and having a minimal HTTP server and
an all in one is
actually pretty relevant today.

I got this kind of feedback offline too saying that meecrowave is really
great for custom apps or not standard usages/backends (this is what I do
now and I share that)
but that TomEE is great for "highway" apps since all is already setup.

There really are space for both and what is great is that contributing to
one is 80% of the time contributing to both since the glue code if
meecrowave is pretty much nothing
so you contribute to the stack which is the same for both, win-win for
everyone :).

Clearly just my experience but think even Java can't say there is one fits
all anymore today.


> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> > Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional
> > technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a
> > MicroProfile server.
> > BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what
> > the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or
> > Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight
> than
> > 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.
> >
> >
> > For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
> > * if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also
> > need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA,
> JAX-WS,
> > EJB, etc -> use TomEE
> > After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> projects
> > anyway.
> > LieGrue,strub
> >     On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Gurkan,
> >
> > All has clarified after your mail:
> >
> > 1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
> > 2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
> > itself!), name is not even on the website.
> > 3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
> > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> >
> > So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
> > checked out the projects IMHO.
> >
> > Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email].
> invalid>
> > a écrit :
> >
> >  Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
> > (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
> > Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
> > point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
> > in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
> > belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
> > e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
> >
> > CheersGurkan
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain
> Manni-Bucau <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi All,
> > Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard
> >
> > Can we assume that from now on?
> >
> >
> > In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined
> for
> > safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
> > classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
> > tomee-mp.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Bruno Baptista
> > http://twitter.com/brunobat_
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent
> Apache
> > > MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> > > MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/
> > geronimo-config
> > .
> > > Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> > > MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> > > .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE
> libs
> > > and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
> > enrichment.prefixes
> > > to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part
> of
> > > safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just
> > fine.
> > > If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> > > required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> > > MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> > > issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If
> we
> > > look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> > > 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX
> 3.2.x
> > > doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
> > I've
> > > also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but
> there
> > > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work,
> but
> > > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to
> support
> > > MP 1.3.
> > > Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> > > I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE
> > flavour
> > > with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> > > Any thoughts?
> > > Cheers,Roberto
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Gurkan Erdogdu-3
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg-2
>>>After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those projects anyway. When you have lots of similar projects, it is not easy to create and maintain the healthy community , only couple of active developers works on these projects without general community consensus . I prefer to have one project which covers all of these similar technologies.

CheersGurkan
    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:10:57 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a MicroProfile server.
BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight than 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.


For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
* if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA, JAX-WS, EJB, etc -> use TomEE
After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those projects anyway.
LieGrue,strub
    On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: 
 
 Hi Gurkan,

All has clarified after your mail:

1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
itself!), name is not even on the website.
3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)

So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
checked out the projects IMHO.

Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email]>
a écrit :

 Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
(or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E

CheersGurkan



    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
[hidden email]> wrote:

 Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi All,
Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:

https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard

Can we assume that from now on?


In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
tomee-mp.

Cheers

Bruno Baptista
http://twitter.com/brunobat_



On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:

> Hi guys,
> I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
.
> Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
enrichment.prefixes
> to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just fine.
> If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
I've

> also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> MP 1.3.
> Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE flavour
> with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> Any thoughts?
> Cheers,Roberto
>   
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Romain Manni-Bucau
2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <[hidden email]>:

> >>>After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> projects anyway. When you have lots of similar projects, it is not easy to
> create and maintain the healthy community , only couple of active
> developers works on these projects without general community consensus . I
> prefer to have one project which covers all of these similar technologies.
>

Except it doesn't work in practise I think - we tried and failed - cause
communities are actually different. Sadly it goes through IRC/twitter a lot
and seems mails are no more mainstream but core dev are the same, users are
not.
If we see a cost we can't pay we'll probably merge them but it is clearly
not the case today so no real point merging them and loosing users.


>
> CheersGurkan
>     On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:10:57 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional
> technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a
> MicroProfile server.
> BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what
> the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or
> Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight than
> 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.
>
>
> For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
> * if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also
> need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA, JAX-WS,
> EJB, etc -> use TomEE
> After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those projects
> anyway.
> LieGrue,strub
>     On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Hi Gurkan,
>
> All has clarified after your mail:
>
> 1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
> 2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
> itself!), name is not even on the website.
> 3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
> 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
>
> So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
> checked out the projects IMHO.
>
> Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email]>
> a écrit :
>
>  Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
> (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
> Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
> point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
> in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
> belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
> e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
>
> CheersGurkan
>
>
>
>     On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Hi All,
> Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard
>
> Can we assume that from now on?
>
>
> In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
> safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
> classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
> tomee-mp.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bruno Baptista
> http://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
>
> On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> > I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> > MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> > MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/
> geronimo-config
> .
> > Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> > MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> > .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> > and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
> enrichment.prefixes
> > to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> > safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just
> fine.
> > If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> > required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> > MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> > issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> > look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> > 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> > doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
> I've
> > also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> > MP 1.3.
> > Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> > I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE
> flavour
> > with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> > Any thoughts?
> > Cheers,Roberto
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Gurkan Erdogdu-3
 Even if we use IRC or similar tools, we need to get all of these discussion to our mailing lists. ASF main idea is to use the mailing lists for these discussions. I think such decisions taken from other places really kills the projects and community

CheersGurkan

    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:38:02 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <[hidden email]>:

> >>>After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> projects anyway. When you have lots of similar projects, it is not easy to
> create and maintain the healthy community , only couple of active
> developers works on these projects without general community consensus . I
> prefer to have one project which covers all of these similar technologies.
>

Except it doesn't work in practise I think - we tried and failed - cause
communities are actually different. Sadly it goes through IRC/twitter a lot
and seems mails are no more mainstream but core dev are the same, users are
not.
If we see a cost we can't pay we'll probably merge them but it is clearly
not the case today so no real point merging them and loosing users.


>
> CheersGurkan
>    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:10:57 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional
> technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a
> MicroProfile server.
> BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what
> the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or
> Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight than
> 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.
>
>
> For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
> * if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also
> need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA, JAX-WS,
> EJB, etc -> use TomEE
> After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those projects
> anyway.
> LieGrue,strub
>    On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Hi Gurkan,
>
> All has clarified after your mail:
>
> 1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
> 2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
> itself!), name is not even on the website.
> 3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
> 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
>
> So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
> checked out the projects IMHO.
>
> Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email]>
> a écrit :
>
>  Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
> (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
> Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
> point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
> in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
> belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
> e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
>
> CheersGurkan
>
>
>
>    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Hi All,
> Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard
>
> Can we assume that from now on?
>
>
> In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined for
> safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
> classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
> tomee-mp.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bruno Baptista
> http://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
>
> On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> > I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent Apache
> > MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> > MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/
> geronimo-config
> .
> > Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> > MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> > .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE libs
> > and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
> enrichment.prefixes
> > to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part of
> > safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just
> fine.
> > If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> > required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> > MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> > issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If we
> > look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> > 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX 3.2.x
> > doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
> I've
> > also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but there
> > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work, but
> > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to support
> > MP 1.3.
> > Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> > I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE
> flavour
> > with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> > Any thoughts?
> > Cheers,Roberto
> >
>  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Romain Manni-Bucau
2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <[hidden email]>:

>  Even if we use IRC or similar tools, we need to get all of these
> discussion to our mailing lists. ASF main idea is to use the mailing lists
> for these discussions. I think such decisions taken from other places
> really kills the projects and community
>

You read it wrong, the decisions have been done on the list the asf way.
The community and user activity doesn't always go through the list since it
requires steps to enter whereas twitter and irc are no step - guess it is
why we miss activities on the list.


>
> CheersGurkan
>
>     On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:38:02 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <[hidden email].
> invalid>:
>
> > >>>After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> > projects anyway. When you have lots of similar projects, it is not easy
> to
> > create and maintain the healthy community , only couple of active
> > developers works on these projects without general community consensus .
> I
> > prefer to have one project which covers all of these similar
> technologies.
> >
>
> Except it doesn't work in practise I think - we tried and failed - cause
> communities are actually different. Sadly it goes through IRC/twitter a lot
> and seems mails are no more mainstream but core dev are the same, users are
> not.
> If we see a cost we can't pay we'll probably merge them but it is clearly
> not the case today so no real point merging them and loosing users.
>
>
> >
> > CheersGurkan
> >    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:10:57 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> > Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional
> > technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a
> > MicroProfile server.
> > BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what
> > the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or
> > Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight
> than
> > 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.
> >
> >
> > For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
> > * if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also
> > need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA,
> JAX-WS,
> > EJB, etc -> use TomEE
> > After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> projects
> > anyway.
> > LieGrue,strub
> >    On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Gurkan,
> >
> > All has clarified after your mail:
> >
> > 1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
> > 2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
> > itself!), name is not even on the website.
> > 3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
> > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> >
> > So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
> > checked out the projects IMHO.
> >
> > Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email].
> invalid>
> > a écrit :
> >
> >  Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
> > (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
> > Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
> > point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
> > in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
> > belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
> > e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
> >
> > CheersGurkan
> >
> >
> >
> >    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi All,
> > Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard
> >
> > Can we assume that from now on?
> >
> >
> > In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined
> for
> > safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
> > classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
> > tomee-mp.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Bruno Baptista
> > http://twitter.com/brunobat_
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent
> Apache
> > > MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> > > MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/
> > geronimo-config
> > .
> > > Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> > > MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> > > .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE
> libs
> > > and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
> > enrichment.prefixes
> > > to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part
> of
> > > safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just
> > fine.
> > > If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> > > required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> > > MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> > > issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If
> we
> > > look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> > > 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX
> 3.2.x
> > > doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
> > I've
> > > also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but
> there
> > > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work,
> but
> > > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to
> support
> > > MP 1.3.
> > > Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> > > I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE
> > flavour
> > > with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> > > Any thoughts?
> > > Cheers,Roberto
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TomEE and MicroProfile

Roberto Cortez
 
Hi,
Thank you for the discussion.
I do believe that we should provide a MP 1.3 implementation under TomEE 7. As we know, moving from major versions is sometimes slow in a lot of organizations, even if the upgrade only requires a zip file.
So, I'll look into integrating some of the work under TomEE 7 and then 8.
Cheers,Roberto    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 9:02:44 AM GMT, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <[hidden email]>:

>  Even if we use IRC or similar tools, we need to get all of these
> discussion to our mailing lists. ASF main idea is to use the mailing lists
> for these discussions. I think such decisions taken from other places
> really kills the projects and community
>

You read it wrong, the decisions have been done on the list the asf way.
The community and user activity doesn't always go through the list since it
requires steps to enter whereas twitter and irc are no step - guess it is
why we miss activities on the list.


>
> CheersGurkan
>
>    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:38:02 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <[hidden email].
> invalid>:
>
> > >>>After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> > projects anyway. When you have lots of similar projects, it is not easy
> to
> > create and maintain the healthy community , only couple of active
> > developers works on these projects without general community consensus .
> I
> > prefer to have one project which covers all of these similar
> technologies.
> >
>
> Except it doesn't work in practise I think - we tried and failed - cause
> communities are actually different. Sadly it goes through IRC/twitter a lot
> and seems mails are no more mainstream but core dev are the same, users are
> not.
> If we see a cost we can't pay we'll probably merge them but it is clearly
> not the case today so no real point merging them and loosing users.
>
>
> >
> > CheersGurkan
> >    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:10:57 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> > Well, MP defines just a _minimal_ requirement and a set of additional
> > technologies.TomEE can easily implement these and call itself a
> > MicroProfile server.
> > BUT: it will be really hard to trim down TomEE to this bare minimum what
> > the MP specification defines. It will always be bigger than Meecrowave or
> > Hammock! But does 'bigger' mean fat? No, 40MB is certainly more weight
> than
> > 9MB, but in most cases it doesn't even matter.In some it does though.
> >
> >
> > For me there is a clear and concise way of scaling:
> > * if you only need servlets and no DI -> use pure Tomcat * if you also
> > need CDI and JAX-RS -> use Meecrowave (or Hammock)* if you need XA,
> JAX-WS,
> > EJB, etc -> use TomEE
> > After all the same (active!) people are involved in most of those
> projects
> > anyway.
> > LieGrue,strub
> >    On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 07:54:27 CET, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Gurkan,
> >
> > All has clarified after your mail:
> >
> > 1. Geronimo: ee* umbrella project for subspec
> > 2. Meecrowave: light cxf/tomcat/johnzon/owb server (no MP target by
> > itself!), name is not even on the website.
> > 3. TomEE: javaee server + tomee or RA specific projects
> > 4. Hammock: real MP server based on cdi (tomee cant be that)
> >
> > So there is no real confusion since the overlaps are very small once you
> > checked out the projects IMHO.
> >
> > Le 22 févr. 2018 07:43, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[hidden email].
> invalid>
> > a écrit :
> >
> >  Hi allSeveral months ago I advised to create another profile under TomEE
> > (or create another TLP project) instead of duplicating the work in
> > Meecrowave project but Romain and Mark rejected. Now, come to the same
> > point :) There are lots of separate projects (or subprojects, or modules)
> > in Apache (Geronimo, TomEE, Meecrowave. I think all of these modules must
> > belong to TomEE. Lots of users are confused with this
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d6058ba109f27cd74c29cd93bebfc
> > e29160145723407e203e43d145@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
> >
> > CheersGurkan
> >
> >
> >
> >    On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 12:41:19 AM GMT+3, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi All,
> > Is it a given that in the future we will use on TomEE both:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard
> >
> > Can we assume that from now on?
> >
> >
> > In the MP distro probably yes. Stack (dependencies) will pby be refined
> for
> > safeguard since current one is not that friendly for tomee IMHO - tomcat
> > classloading part + size - but not yet a blocker. Config is good for a
> > tomee-mp.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Bruno Baptista
> > http://twitter.com/brunobat_
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21-02-2018 18:49, Roberto Cortez wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I've been looking a little bit in how to use some of the existent
> Apache
> > > MP implementations with TomEE and here are some ideas / conclusions.
> > > MicroProfile Configuration:Using https://github.com/apache/
> > geronimo-config
> > .
> > > Just adding the jar, plus API to TomEE libs seems to be enough.
> > > MicroProfile Fault Tolerance:Using https://github
> > > .com/apache/geronimo-safeguard. Added the jars and the API to TomEE
> libs
> > > and also required to set TomEE configuration tomee.webapp.classloader.
> > enrichment.prefixes
> > > to safeguard-impl. This is to add the required CDI Beans that are part
> of
> > > safeguards into the webapp context. With this, it seems to work just
> > fine.
> > > If this would be part of the dist, I guess we would need to add the
> > > required CDI Beans into org.apache.openejb.cdi.CdiScanner.
> > > MicroProfile Rest Client:Apache CXF added a MP Rest Client module. The
> > > issue is that it is added into the 3.2.x line, which is JAX-RS 2.1. If
> we
> > > look into the MP spec, the Rest Client should be compatible with JAX-RS
> > > 2.0, which is implemented in CFX 3.1.x line. Upgrading TomEE to CFX
> 3.2.x
> > > doesn't really work due to the JAX-RS 2.1 dependency. As a workaround,
> > I've
> > > also tried to use just the CFX 3.2.x module lib MP Rest Client, but
> there
> > > is some dependent code. Made a few local changed and got it to work,
> but
> > > ideally, the MP Rest client should be ported back to CFX 3.1.x to
> support
> > > MP 1.3.
> > > Couldn't find any other Apache implementations for the other MP specs.
> > > I've also think that it could be interesting to distribute a TomEE
> > flavour
> > > with just the MP stuff, to slim down the binary.
> > > Any thoughts?
> > > Cheers,Roberto
> > >
> >
>  
12