[jsr342-experts] Re: [javaee-spec users] Re: Minimal profile ?

From: Reza Rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:12:47 -0400

BTW, in my particular geographic region, I am seeing more and more folks
turning away from Tomcat, Spring, etc to more standards based platforms.
From that perspective, the Web Profile decision in Java EE 6 looks like the
right decision to have been made. I think we should keep moving forward in
that direction, continue to innovate, adopt good ideas and improve upon the
basic APIs, modularity, pluggability, etc as well as implementation
stability, performance, etc. In the same token though, resting upon laurels
too quickly and letting up on a strong pace is the real danger.


From: Antonio Goncalves [mailto:antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:44 PM
To: jsr342-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Minimal profile ?


Good point, having a SPI would be brilliant for pluggability. I also
understand Pete's point of view as classloading is still an issue with app
servers. My fear is that we will still see "Tomcat-like" applications and
"EE-like" application running on different app server vendors. But well, we
have done that for many years now, a few extra won't hurt




On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene_at_redhat.com>

I know what you are getting it, but I still want to stress that Modularity
!= Plugability, although it is a helpful tool in achieving it.

The problem is that to integrate JSF fully and correctly in compliance with
the EE spec you have to use non-standard integration hooks. Even with the RI
(mojarra) those impl specific hooks have changed in a non-compatible way
between minor versions. So for a container provider to support even multiple
versions of one implementation, you have to implement integration code for
each one.

JPA did a good start with having an SPI (although it could be better, let
the container do the bytecode analysis vs the provider). I am all for adding
plugability SPIs, but the minimal profile is a no-go for me. Really all a
minmal profile is, is just the serlet spec, and vendors can still release
standalone servlet containers if they want. Calling the servlet spec a "Java
EE Profile" wouldn't really change anything, other than maybe confuse

On 6/29/12 4:46 PM, Werner Keil wrote:


Interesting idea. How big is the difference between what you propose and
the Web Profile, e.g. the TomEE server meets?

EE 7 could offer a limited set of Modularity, but when the decision was
made to drop Modularity from the Java 7 Platform due to the
complications and challenges, the OpenJDK team is facing up until this
day, I was among the first to point out the negative impact this would
have on EE to then Spec Lead Roberto, and others, particularly EC
Members present.
Further Modularity or additional profiles may only work if the
foundation really became modular. We hope and trust that's going to be
EE8 or any EE that can use Java (8) Modularity.


Am 29.06.2012 23:35 schrieb "Antonio Goncalves"

<antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com <mailto:antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>>:

    Hi all,

    Four years ago, when we were building Java EE 6, we had this idea of
    a minimal profile that Roberto blogged about
    The idea was to standardise "Tomcat-like" application servers with a
    minimal profile containing Servlets and JSPs. So we would have had
    this "minimal" profile, the web profile and the full one. We mostly
    voted no on this minimal profile, and I was one of them.

    I've spent the week migrating a JSF 1.2 application running on
    Tomcat to JBoss 6 EAP (which comes with JSF 2.0). Now I'm trying to
    run an application with JAX-RS 2.0 running on GlassFish 3.x (which
    comes with JAX-RS 1.1). On both cases, it's hell. This would be
    easier if I could have used a JBoss 6 EAP Minimal Profile (or a
    GlassFish 3.x Minimal Profile) and bundle my own external jars like
    I do with Tomcat. If we want applications to migrate to Java EE
    application servers, one ease of use would be to have just a servlet
    container. And it will give a nice migration plan to application :
    e.g. "migrate from Tomcat to JBoss Minimal profile, and then when
    you are used to your new application server, move to a Web Profile
    and start adding other Java EE modules".

    I think having a new "Minimal Profile" (a better name would be a
    "Servlet Profile" with just Servlets, EL and JSP) would increase
    modularity in application servers and help applications to migrate
    to Java EE.

    What would you think of introducing a new profile in Java EE 7 ?


Jason T. Greene
JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Antonio Goncalves 
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org>  | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/agoncal>  | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>  | Paris JUG <http://www.parisjug.org>
| Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>