Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

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

Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

Mark Struberg
Hi folks!

The EG started working on JSR-382.
It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)

So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config project.
Any objection?

LieGrue,
strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hmm,

which source do you speak about - I'm confused by "xbean" part?

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/config/trunk/ ?
it is exactly that from the source and meta in the pom so not sure you
even need to ask ;)

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn


2017-10-26 21:46 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:

> Hi folks!
>
> The EG started working on JSR-382.
> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>
> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
> project.
> Any objection?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

jlmonteiro
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
Hi Mark,

sounds like a good idea.
Happy to help if you wish

JLouis

Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi folks!

The EG started working on JSR-382.
It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)

So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config project.
Any objection?

LieGrue,
strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

John D. Ament
As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine with it.

John

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Mark,

sounds like a good idea.
Happy to help if you wish

JLouis

Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi folks!

The EG started working on JSR-382.
It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)

So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config project.
Any objection?

LieGrue,
strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

Mark Struberg
I thought about just providing another branch.
One for MP, the other for the JSR.

I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally released.
I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.

Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of the JSR?

Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which exposes the mechanism for the MP API.
After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.

LieGrue,
strub

On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:


As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine with it.

John

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Mark,

sounds like a good idea.
Happy to help if you wish

JLouis

Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi folks!

The EG started working on JSR-382.
It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)

So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config project.
Any objection?

LieGrue,
strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

Romain Manni-Bucau
is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
headache when fixing something :s

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn


2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:

> I thought about just providing another branch.
> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>
> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally released.
> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>
> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
> the JSR?
>
> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which exposes
> the mechanism for the MP API.
> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine with
> it.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> sounds like a good idea.
> Happy to help if you wish
>
> JLouis
>
> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Hi folks!
>
> The EG started working on JSR-382.
> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>
> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
> project.
> Any objection?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

Mark Struberg
Maybe we can go yet another way.
Take what we have right now (MicroProfile-API) and expose the JSR-382 functionality as wrapper in an additional module?

It would also be possible to do it the other way around: have the core use javax.config.* and expose the MP apis in an additional module.

I'd say whatever provides more features should be the base system.
The other should get exposed on top of it.

Currently it would even be trivial to have an own project with just a few lines which implements JSR-382 on top of any MicroProfile-config container.
On the long term I expect javax.config.* to be used predominantly though.

Wdyt?

LieGrue,
strub


On Friday, 27 October 2017, 18:14:39 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
headache when fixing something :s

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn


2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:

> I thought about just providing another branch.
> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>
> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally released.
> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>
> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
> the JSR?
>
> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which exposes
> the mechanism for the MP API.
> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine with
> it.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> sounds like a good idea.
> Happy to help if you wish
>
> JLouis
>
> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Hi folks!
>
> The EG started working on JSR-382.
> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>
> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
> project.
> Any objection?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hmm, would work and be saner that what i had in mind.

In term of which one wraps the other I'm tempted to say javax.* will
move slower than MP so I'd impl javax.* with MP but no strong
opposition on the other side for now, doesn't impact the user anyway,
right?

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn


2017-10-27 21:09 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:

> Maybe we can go yet another way.
> Take what we have right now (MicroProfile-API) and expose the JSR-382
> functionality as wrapper in an additional module?
>
> It would also be possible to do it the other way around: have the core use
> javax.config.* and expose the MP apis in an additional module.
>
> I'd say whatever provides more features should be the base system.
> The other should get exposed on top of it.
>
> Currently it would even be trivial to have an own project with just a few
> lines which implements JSR-382 on top of any MicroProfile-config container.
> On the long term I expect javax.config.* to be used predominantly though.
>
> Wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 18:14:39 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
> branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
> headache when fixing something :s
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>
>
> 2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
>> I thought about just providing another branch.
>> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>>
>> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally
>> released.
>> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>>
>> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
>> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
>> the JSR?
>>
>> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which
>> exposes
>> the mechanism for the MP API.
>> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine
>> with
>> it.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> sounds like a good idea.
>> Happy to help if you wish
>>
>> JLouis
>>
>> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> The EG started working on JSR-382.
>> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
>> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
>> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>>
>> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
>> project.
>> Any objection?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make geronimo/xbean config a JSR-382 impl?

Mark Struberg
yes, it has no effect on the users.

Currently there are not many new features planned for MP-config.
But we are discussing 2 new features in the ConfigJSR.
So I assume that javax.config will have more features for now.

LieGrue,
strub

On Friday, 27 October 2017, 21:54:58 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hmm, would work and be saner that what i had in mind.

In term of which one wraps the other I'm tempted to say javax.* will
move slower than MP so I'd impl javax.* with MP but no strong
opposition on the other side for now, doesn't impact the user anyway,
right?

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn


2017-10-27 21:09 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:

> Maybe we can go yet another way.
> Take what we have right now (MicroProfile-API) and expose the JSR-382
> functionality as wrapper in an additional module?
>
> It would also be possible to do it the other way around: have the core use
> javax.config.* and expose the MP apis in an additional module.
>
> I'd say whatever provides more features should be the base system.
> The other should get exposed on top of it.
>
> Currently it would even be trivial to have an own project with just a few
> lines which implements JSR-382 on top of any MicroProfile-config container.
> On the long term I expect javax.config.* to be used predominantly though.
>
> Wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 18:14:39 GMT+2, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> is a copy-artifact with a relocation doable while 1:1? would avoid
> branches, otherwise we can need some common modules to avoid a
> headache when fixing something :s
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>
>
> 2017-10-27 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
>> I thought about just providing another branch.
>> One for MP, the other for the JSR.
>>
>> I expect MicroProfile to also switch to the JSR once it is finally
>> released.
>> I will try to clarify the relation in the next mp meeting.
>>
>> Until that we gonna impl both I'd say.
>> In the future we might even provide an optional mp compat layer on top of
>> the JSR?
>>
>> Means g-config implements JSR-382 but has an additional module which
>> exposes
>> the mechanism for the MP API.
>> After all it is currently really 1:1 just with different package names.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> On Friday, 27 October 2017, 14:51:53 GMT+2, John D. Ament
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As long as we don't lose support for MP Config in the process, I'm fine
>> with
>> it.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> sounds like a good idea.
>> Happy to help if you wish
>>
>> JLouis
>>
>> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2017 à 21:46, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> The EG started working on JSR-382.
>> It seems that it will be based on the MicroProfile work.
>> We did just rename a few things back to javax.config.
>> Funnily that's where it all started in early 2016 over here at Geronimo :)
>>
>> So I would love to start a 'javaConfig10' feature branch on the config
>> project.
>> Any objection?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub