You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2018/02/21 18:49:08 UTC
TomEE and MicroProfile
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
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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" <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> 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
> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
> david.blevins@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> 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
> > <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> 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
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <da...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> 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
> <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> 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
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
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 <da...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> 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
> <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> 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
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> 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
> <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> 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
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> 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
<ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> 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
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
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 <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> 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
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-02-22 9:27 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
> 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
> 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 <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> 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 <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gu...@yahoo.com.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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 28 févr. 2018 12:20, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> a
écrit :
> If our MP is eclipse then I'm not sure TomEE would be very interesting
from
> the user point of view?
No, that's not a problem.
Yes, the API is handled by the Eclipse Foundation, but it is ALv2. And
quite a log ASF committers also did work on those APIs
And the impls we would use are ALL ASF own implementations.
The TCKs are same as with the APIs, so all ALv2 licensed.
And of course we do not ship them, so it would also be no problem if they
were EPL.
-> notaproblem
No link actually. The point was tomee is only interesting as a not
denatured tomcat server with an asf stack. If stack is eclipse stack then
you just use other impl and do not need to wait for tomee. We still have a
lot to bring to MP even if it is a bit more open so I think that keeping to
impl specs @asf is still worth it and even justifies our projects.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 28.02.2018 um 10:38 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> 2018-02-28 10:31 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Good to see talk on moving TomEE into the MP scene.
>>
>> The MP landing page of interest is this one:
>> https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
>>
>> As we can see, TomEE is a long way behind here.
>>
>> I feel that we need to act 'really fast' to get TomEE on that board as
>> soon as possible, even if it is 'just' a distribution with mp-config
>> enabled - That would give us two hits on that board with little effort,
mp
>> 1.0 and config 1.2.
>>
>> I don't think we should be waiting to get as much in as possible before
>> releasing something, it should be our priority to release something now.
>> That could easily be TomEE 7, and 8 soon after. In fact, the longer we
>> wait, the less significant TomEE will become to MP.
>>
>> I don't think it would be too hard to maintain the 7 and 8 versions by
>> adding mp-impls as soon as we have them available.
>>
>> As you know, all I wanted to do recently was to open up mp modules space
>> for this work to begin on getting TomEE up to spec - Again, not to create
>> implementations or libraries. I still believe this is a logical approach,
>> to have a module per spec in TomEE. These modules should be focusing on
>> getting the current impls of choice (Wherever they come from!) integrated
>> into TomEE, and passing the corresponding TCKs provided by MP. I'd
>> personally like to see TomEE MP modules high up in the project hierarchy
>> and not buried, but I will leave that up to you guys for obvious reasons.
>> I'd just ask that any one of you guys to get the ball rolling on this so
>> that we can maybe divide the work?
>>
>
> A small note on the "wherever they come from": one of the strength of
tomee
> and differentiation point was to be 100% (almost ;)) ASF. If
> our MP is eclipse then I'm not sure TomEE would be very interesting from
> the user point of view?
> Also note the MP specs have several rules we'll want o break through
> toggles since they make the spec unusable so we will probably need to own
> the spec anyway as we already started.
>
>
>>
>> Andy.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/02/18 16:02, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Romain,
>>> I'll have a look into JL work.
>>> Cheers,Roberto On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:53:50 PM GMT, Romain
>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>
>>> JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo
>>> dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here.
>>> Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or
assemble
>>> modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all
>>> require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to
>>> apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs
wp
>>> and fp will not).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-
>>> high-performance>
>>>
>>> 2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>>>
>>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>> invalid>:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> <
>>>>
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Andy Gumbrecht
>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> https://www.tomitribe.io
>>
>>
>> Ubique
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
> If our MP is eclipse then I'm not sure TomEE would be very interesting from
> the user point of view?
No, that's not a problem.
Yes, the API is handled by the Eclipse Foundation, but it is ALv2. And quite a log ASF committers also did work on those APIs
And the impls we would use are ALL ASF own implementations.
The TCKs are same as with the APIs, so all ALv2 licensed.
And of course we do not ship them, so it would also be no problem if they were EPL.
-> notaproblem
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 28.02.2018 um 10:38 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> 2018-02-28 10:31 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Good to see talk on moving TomEE into the MP scene.
>>
>> The MP landing page of interest is this one:
>> https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
>>
>> As we can see, TomEE is a long way behind here.
>>
>> I feel that we need to act 'really fast' to get TomEE on that board as
>> soon as possible, even if it is 'just' a distribution with mp-config
>> enabled - That would give us two hits on that board with little effort, mp
>> 1.0 and config 1.2.
>>
>> I don't think we should be waiting to get as much in as possible before
>> releasing something, it should be our priority to release something now.
>> That could easily be TomEE 7, and 8 soon after. In fact, the longer we
>> wait, the less significant TomEE will become to MP.
>>
>> I don't think it would be too hard to maintain the 7 and 8 versions by
>> adding mp-impls as soon as we have them available.
>>
>> As you know, all I wanted to do recently was to open up mp modules space
>> for this work to begin on getting TomEE up to spec - Again, not to create
>> implementations or libraries. I still believe this is a logical approach,
>> to have a module per spec in TomEE. These modules should be focusing on
>> getting the current impls of choice (Wherever they come from!) integrated
>> into TomEE, and passing the corresponding TCKs provided by MP. I'd
>> personally like to see TomEE MP modules high up in the project hierarchy
>> and not buried, but I will leave that up to you guys for obvious reasons.
>> I'd just ask that any one of you guys to get the ball rolling on this so
>> that we can maybe divide the work?
>>
>
> A small note on the "wherever they come from": one of the strength of tomee
> and differentiation point was to be 100% (almost ;)) ASF. If
> our MP is eclipse then I'm not sure TomEE would be very interesting from
> the user point of view?
> Also note the MP specs have several rules we'll want o break through
> toggles since they make the spec unusable so we will probably need to own
> the spec anyway as we already started.
>
>
>>
>> Andy.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/02/18 16:02, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Romain,
>>> I'll have a look into JL work.
>>> Cheers,Roberto On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:53:50 PM GMT, Romain
>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>
>>> JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo
>>> dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here.
>>> Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or assemble
>>> modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all
>>> require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to
>>> apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs wp
>>> and fp will not).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-
>>> high-performance>
>>>
>>> 2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>>>
>>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>> invalid>:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> <
>>>>
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Andy Gumbrecht
>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> https://www.tomitribe.io
>>
>>
>> Ubique
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-02-28 10:31 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> Good to see talk on moving TomEE into the MP scene.
>
> The MP landing page of interest is this one:
> https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
>
> As we can see, TomEE is a long way behind here.
>
> I feel that we need to act 'really fast' to get TomEE on that board as
> soon as possible, even if it is 'just' a distribution with mp-config
> enabled - That would give us two hits on that board with little effort, mp
> 1.0 and config 1.2.
>
> I don't think we should be waiting to get as much in as possible before
> releasing something, it should be our priority to release something now.
> That could easily be TomEE 7, and 8 soon after. In fact, the longer we
> wait, the less significant TomEE will become to MP.
>
> I don't think it would be too hard to maintain the 7 and 8 versions by
> adding mp-impls as soon as we have them available.
>
> As you know, all I wanted to do recently was to open up mp modules space
> for this work to begin on getting TomEE up to spec - Again, not to create
> implementations or libraries. I still believe this is a logical approach,
> to have a module per spec in TomEE. These modules should be focusing on
> getting the current impls of choice (Wherever they come from!) integrated
> into TomEE, and passing the corresponding TCKs provided by MP. I'd
> personally like to see TomEE MP modules high up in the project hierarchy
> and not buried, but I will leave that up to you guys for obvious reasons.
> I'd just ask that any one of you guys to get the ball rolling on this so
> that we can maybe divide the work?
>
A small note on the "wherever they come from": one of the strength of tomee
and differentiation point was to be 100% (almost ;)) ASF. If
our MP is eclipse then I'm not sure TomEE would be very interesting from
the user point of view?
Also note the MP specs have several rules we'll want o break through
toggles since they make the spec unusable so we will probably need to own
the spec anyway as we already started.
>
> Andy.
>
>
>
> On 27/02/18 16:02, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>
>> Thanks Romain,
>> I'll have a look into JL work.
>> Cheers,Roberto On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:53:50 PM GMT, Romain
>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Roberto,
>>
>> JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo
>> dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here.
>> Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or assemble
>> modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all
>> require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to
>> apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs wp
>> and fp will not).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-
>> high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>>
>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>> invalid>:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> <
>>>
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>> 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
>>>>> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>> <
>>>>
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> https://www.tomitribe.io
>
>
> Ubique
>
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
Well, TomEE was and still IS MicroProfile-1.0 compatible!
MP-1.0 did only require CDI-1.2, JAX-RS-2.0 and JSON-P-1.0
We ship all that, thus we are MP-1.0 compatible.
With later versions of MP the following important specs got added
* microprofile-config -> implementation is Apache geronimo-config (requires Java8)
* microprofile-rest -> part of CXF-3.2.2 (JAX-RS-2.1, requires EE8, Java8)
* microprofile-fault-tolerance -> implementation is geronimo-safeguard (requires Java8)
Given that. I think the quickest way is to add those to TomEE8 and then think about how to probably backport those to TomEE7.
But before doing that we must finish the discussion about dropping Java7 support.
And then again this would better go hand-in-hand with moving from TomEE-7.0.x to TomEE-7.1.x
Also note that any user can himself add the mp libs listed above and use the programming model without any restrictions.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 28.02.2018 um 10:31 schrieb Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Good to see talk on moving TomEE into the MP scene.
>
> The MP landing page of interest is this one: https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
>
> As we can see, TomEE is a long way behind here.
>
> I feel that we need to act 'really fast' to get TomEE on that board as soon as possible, even if it is 'just' a distribution with mp-config enabled - That would give us two hits on that board with little effort, mp 1.0 and config 1.2.
>
> I don't think we should be waiting to get as much in as possible before releasing something, it should be our priority to release something now. That could easily be TomEE 7, and 8 soon after. In fact, the longer we wait, the less significant TomEE will become to MP.
>
> I don't think it would be too hard to maintain the 7 and 8 versions by adding mp-impls as soon as we have them available.
>
> As you know, all I wanted to do recently was to open up mp modules space for this work to begin on getting TomEE up to spec - Again, not to create implementations or libraries. I still believe this is a logical approach, to have a module per spec in TomEE. These modules should be focusing on getting the current impls of choice (Wherever they come from!) integrated into TomEE, and passing the corresponding TCKs provided by MP. I'd personally like to see TomEE MP modules high up in the project hierarchy and not buried, but I will leave that up to you guys for obvious reasons. I'd just ask that any one of you guys to get the ball rolling on this so that we can maybe divide the work?
>
> Andy.
>
>
> On 27/02/18 16:02, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>> Thanks Romain,
>> I'll have a look into JL work.
>> Cheers,Roberto On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:53:50 PM GMT, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Roberto,
>>
>> JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo
>> dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here.
>> Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or assemble
>> modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all
>> require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to
>> apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs wp
>> and fp will not).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>>
>>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>> invalid>:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>> <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>> 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
>>>>> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>>> 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
>>>> <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> https://www.tomitribe.io
>
>
> Ubique
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>.
Hi All,
Good to see talk on moving TomEE into the MP scene.
The MP landing page of interest is this one:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/Implementation
As we can see, TomEE is a long way behind here.
I feel that we need to act 'really fast' to get TomEE on that board as
soon as possible, even if it is 'just' a distribution with mp-config
enabled - That would give us two hits on that board with little effort,
mp 1.0 and config 1.2.
I don't think we should be waiting to get as much in as possible before
releasing something, it should be our priority to release something now.
That could easily be TomEE 7, and 8 soon after. In fact, the longer we
wait, the less significant TomEE will become to MP.
I don't think it would be too hard to maintain the 7 and 8 versions by
adding mp-impls as soon as we have them available.
As you know, all I wanted to do recently was to open up mp modules space
for this work to begin on getting TomEE up to spec - Again, not to
create implementations or libraries. I still believe this is a logical
approach, to have a module per spec in TomEE. These modules should be
focusing on getting the current impls of choice (Wherever they come
from!) integrated into TomEE, and passing the corresponding TCKs
provided by MP. I'd personally like to see TomEE MP modules high up in
the project hierarchy and not buried, but I will leave that up to you
guys for obvious reasons. I'd just ask that any one of you guys to get
the ball rolling on this so that we can maybe divide the work?
Andy.
On 27/02/18 16:02, Roberto Cortez wrote:
>
> Thanks Romain,
> I'll have a look into JL work.
> Cheers,Roberto On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:53:50 PM GMT, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo
> dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here.
> Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or assemble
> modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all
> require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to
> apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs wp
> and fp will not).
>
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>
>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>> invalid>:
>>
>>> 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
>> <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>> 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
>>>> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
>>> 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
>>> <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>
>>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
https://www.tomitribe.io
Ubique
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Thanks Romain,
I'll have a look into JL work.
Cheers,Roberto On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:53:50 PM GMT, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Roberto,
JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo
dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here.
Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or assemble
modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all
require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to
apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs wp
and fp will not).
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> invalid>:
>
> > 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
> <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> > 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
> > > <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> > 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
> > <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Roberto,
JL already has some work which is close to be imported in Geronimo
dedicated project so maybe ensure you don't duplicate the effort here.
Also we'll need to have a tomee MP module (which can compiles or assemble
modules) on Java 8 otherwise we can't support any MP spec since they all
require java 8 quite hardly in their API so probably time to add to
apache-tomee module a mp assembly which would import java 8 modules (vs wp
and fp will not).
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-02-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> invalid>:
>
> > 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
> <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> > 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
> > > <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> > 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
> > <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> 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
> > <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> 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
> <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-02-22 9:45 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> 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
> > <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gurkanerdogdu@yahoo.com.
> 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
> <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com.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
> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gu...@yahoo.com.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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2018-02-22 9:35 GMT+01:00 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com.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
> <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <gu...@yahoo.com.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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
> >
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com.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.
CheersGurkan
On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 11:10:57 AM GMT+3, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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" <gu...@yahoo.com.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 <
rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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" <gu...@yahoo.com.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 <
rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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" <gu...@yahoo.com.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 <
rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
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 <gu...@yahoo.com.INVALID> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 21 févr. 2018 22:33, "Bruno Baptista" <br...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: TomEE and MicroProfile
Posted by Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com>.
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