You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2017/10/26 19:46:49 UTC
Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Hi folks!
The EG started working on JSR-382.It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config project.Any objection?
LieGrue,strub
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
yes, it has no effect on the users.
Currently there are not many new features planned for MP-config.But we are discussing 2 new features in the ConfigJSR.So I assume that javax.config will have more features for now.
LieGrue,strub
On Friday, 27 October 2017, 21:54:58 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, would work and be saner that what i had in mind.
In term of which one wraps the other I'm tempted to say javax.* will
move slower than MP so I'd impl javax.* with MP but no strong
opposition on the other side for now, doesn't impact the user anyway,
right?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-10-27 21:09 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> Maybe we can go yet another way.
> Take what we have right now (MicroProfile-API) and expose the JSR-382
> functionality as wrapper in an additional module?
>
> It would also be possible to do it the other way around: have the core use
> javax.config.* and expose the MP apis in an additional module.
>
> I'd say whatever provides more features should be the base system.
> The other should get exposed on top of it.
>
> Currently it would even be trivial to have an own project with just a few
> lines which implements JSR-382 on top of any MicroProfile-config container.
> On the long term I expect javax.config.* to be used predominantly though.
>
> Wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 18:14:39 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
> branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
> headache when fixing something :s
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>
>
> 2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>> I thought about just providing another branch.
>> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>>
>> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally
>> released.
>> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>>
>> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
>> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
>> the JSR?
>>
>> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which
>> exposes
>> the mechanism for the MP API.
>> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
>> <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine
>> with
>> it.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> sounds like a good idea.
>> Happy to help if you wish
>>
>> JLouis
>>
>> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> The EG started working on JSR-382.
>> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
>> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
>> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>>
>> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
>> project.
>> Any objection?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hmm, would work and be saner that what i had in mind.
In term of which one wraps the other I'm tempted to say javax.* will
move slower than MP so I'd impl javax.* with MP but no strong
opposition on the other side for now, doesn't impact the user anyway,
right?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-10-27 21:09 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> Maybe we can go yet another way.
> Take what we have right now (MicroProfile-API) and expose the JSR-382
> functionality as wrapper in an additional module?
>
> It would also be possible to do it the other way around: have the core use
> javax.config.* and expose the MP apis in an additional module.
>
> I'd say whatever provides more features should be the base system.
> The other should get exposed on top of it.
>
> Currently it would even be trivial to have an own project with just a few
> lines which implements JSR-382 on top of any MicroProfile-config container.
> On the long term I expect javax.config.* to be used predominantly though.
>
> Wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 18:14:39 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
> branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
> headache when fixing something :s
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>
>
> 2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>> I thought about just providing another branch.
>> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>>
>> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally
>> released.
>> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>>
>> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
>> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
>> the JSR?
>>
>> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which
>> exposes
>> the mechanism for the MP API.
>> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
>> <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine
>> with
>> it.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> sounds like a good idea.
>> Happy to help if you wish
>>
>> JLouis
>>
>> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> The EG started working on JSR-382.
>> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
>> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
>> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>>
>> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
>> project.
>> Any objection?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Maybe we can go yet another way.Take what we have right now (MicroProfile-API) and expose the JSR-382 functionality as wrapper in an additional module?
It would also be possible to do it the other way around: have the core use javax.config.* and expose the MP apis in an additional module.
I'd say whatever provides more features should be the base system.The other should get exposed on top of it.
Currently it would even be trivial to have an own project with just a few lines which implements JSR-382 on top of any MicroProfile-config container.On the long term I expect javax.config.* to be used predominantly though.
Wdyt?
LieGrue,strub
On Friday, 27 October 2017, 18:14:39 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
headache when fixing something :s
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> I thought about just providing another branch.
> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>
> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally released.
> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>
> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
> the JSR?
>
> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which exposes
> the mechanism for the MP API.
> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
> <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine with
> it.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> sounds like a good idea.
> Happy to help if you wish
>
> JLouis
>
> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>
> Hi folks!
>
> The EG started working on JSR-382.
> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>
> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
> project.
> Any objection?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
headache when fixing something :s
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> I thought about just providing another branch.
> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>
> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally released.
> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>
> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
> the JSR?
>
> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which exposes
> the mechanism for the MP API.
> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
> <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine with
> it.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> sounds like a good idea.
> Happy to help if you wish
>
> JLouis
>
> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>
> Hi folks!
>
> The EG started working on JSR-382.
> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>
> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
> project.
> Any objection?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I thought about just providing another branch. One for MP, the other for the JSR.
I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally released. I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
Until that we gonna impl both I'd say. In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of the JSR?
Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which exposes the mechanism for the MP API.After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
LieGrue,strub
On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine with it.
John
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mark,
sounds like a good idea.Happy to help if you wish
JLouis
Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
Hi folks!
The EG started working on JSR-382.It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config project.Any objection?
LieGrue,strub
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine
with it.
John
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> sounds like a good idea.
> Happy to help if you wish
>
> JLouis
>
> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> The EG started working on JSR-382.
>> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
>> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
>> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>>
>> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
>> project.
>> Any objection?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>.
Hi Mark,
sounds like a good idea.
Happy to help if you wish
JLouis
Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> Hi folks!
>
> The EG started working on JSR-382.
> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>
> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
> project.
> Any objection?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hmm,
which source do you speak about - I'm confused by "xbean" part?
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/config/trunk/ ?
it is exactly that from the source and meta in the pom so not sure you
even need to ask ;)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-10-26 21:46 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> Hi folks!
>
> The EG started working on JSR-382.
> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>
> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
> project.
> Any objection?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub