Antonio,
this simply isn't the right answer. Even if I am going to kill your
argumentation line with that
I would love to point you to a quote you know:
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster
horses." They tell us, Henry Ford said that,
but anyway it comes down to a point which is right.
I'm simply not willing to address short time needs. If you are looking
at "Spring-like" applications; Tomcat might
be your solution already.
We are working on EE with it's defined scope and features and I
personally believe this isn't done with simply stripping
every requirement down towards zero in order to make it simple.
I'm exaggerating a bit here to make my point clear. Sorry for that.
-M
On 2 July 2012 09:17, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the problem is more on the Ops side of it than Devs. What do I see
> on my day to day work ? Tomcat is the common denominator, so Tomcat is used
> in production for most of the Spring-like applications. And then, there is a
> bit of JBoss/GlassFish/OrWhatever for EE applications. Ops don't really get
> it and don't really care about specs or implementations. They want to
> administer the less possible combinations of operating systems/JVM/app
> server. If you give them a "JBoss Minimal", a "JBoss Web Profile" and a
> "JBoss Full", for them it's still the same JBoss that they administer. Same
> thing for the migration path : if they know how to administer Tomcat and it
> works, why would they invest in something else ?
>
> I agree with you that better modularity would help, but in the real life,
> modularity is still not perfect. Either we "specify" that EE app servers
> need to be modular (and we are not ready for EE 7) or we just create a new
> Minimal profile that could be a killer profile for all the Spring-link
> applications runnning on Tomcat.
>
> If Devs and Ops love Tomcat, let's give them Tomcat-like app servers.
>
> Antonio
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Markus Eisele <myfear_at_web.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > I am very supportive of better modularity/pluggability (even in
>> > case of swapping/upgrading Java EE API implementations on a given Java
>> > EE
>> > platform -- e.g. swapping Weld for OWB on GlassFish).
>>
>> Same here! That would be a very valuable place to look for
>> improvements as early as possible.
>> Especially with the "cloud topic" in mind this could be the switch to
>> push.
>> Imagine the issues a PaaS provider would run into:
>>
>> 1) swapping/upgrading RIs due to security issues
>> 2) providing own/patched RIs as services
>>
>> I think we could come up with even more ;)
>>
>> There is still the jigsaw "problem".
>> If I only look at the (hopefully) latest system requirements document from
>> Mark
>>
>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/doc/draft-java-module-system-requirements-12
>> it's absolutely possible that every single minute spent with EE 7 will
>> be worth exactly nothing.
>>
>> @Linda/Bill ?
>>
>> -M
>>
>>
>> > On 7/2/2012 12:45 AM, Markus Eisele wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Antonio,
>> >>
>> >> here are my two cents:
>> >> The profile idea was good. And I still support it. Even if the reason
>> >> for it simply was to lower the barriers for web-container centered
>> >> products to earn a Java EE certification.
>> >> It would be nice to have more specialized profiles around but I don't
>> >> believe a new "Servlet/Minimal profil" would be of any help with your
>> >> problem.
>> >> With all the core modules being present in the server classpath you
>> >> end up having trouble replacing them. It ever has been like this.
>> >> I have similar experiences while switching from one vendor to the
>> >> other in general. Even upgrading containers for a single product is a
>> >> pain most of the time.
>> >>
>> >> Having a minimal/lightweight whatever-you-call-it profile in place
>> >> solves this but you would end up with your own DIY app-server. That's
>> >> not the way I would like to see Java EE moving. This approach could
>> >> even be harder in terms of migration in the future. And it sets a
>> >> comparably high barrier for beginners which need to know which
>> >> technologies to pick.
>> >>
>> >> Instead what I would love to see is, that we move forward with some
>> >> thoughts regarding modularization and version number ranges for
>> >> dependent technologies.
>> >> All the modularization work that is done for Java 8 might be a good
>> >> way to facilitate this with later EE versions.
>> >> To me it doesn't seem to be a good fit investing into this before Java
>> >> 8 (and so Java EE 8) and I also don't support having a new minimal
>> >> profile.
>> >>
>> >> -M
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 29 June 2012 23:34, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>> Four years ago, when we were building Java EE 6, we had this idea of a
>> >>> minimal profile that Roberto blogged about
>> >>>
>> >>> (http://weblogs.java.net/blog/robc/archive/2008/02/profiles_in_the.html).
>> >>> 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 ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Antonio
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >> No virus found in this message.
>> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> >> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2437/5105 - Release Date:
>> >> 07/01/12
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France