jsr342-experts@javaee-spec.java.net

[jsr342-experts] Re: Fwd: Re: Minimal profile ?

From: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:07:19 +0200

If we look into the future and think that Spring-like applications will
become legacy, why not giving these applications a migration path ? Let's
take the same war file that runs on Tomcat and deploy it to a "JBoss
Minimal Profile". It will work. I think that's a fantastic signal that we
could send to Devs & Ops "look guys, we have a profile to run your legacy
code"

Antonio

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Markus Eisele <myfear_at_web.de> wrote:

> I think we are mixing up a lot of stuff here.
>
> 1) Profiles in general
> WebProfile was a good decision by bundling a couple of technologies
> which are much easier to use and operate than the full stack.
> I still tend to see this as a kind of a certification initiative to
> get things like Tomcat onboard with EE.
> I would also love to see some other profiles as suggested back in the
> days. A Portal Profile or a Mobile Profile or something like that.
> Stuff bundled to more or less exactly fit the needs of different
> usecases within the EE specs.
> Looking at my daily projects I couldn't find a single example where a
> "Minimal profile" would have solved any issues at all. it only would
> have generated a lot of overhead for DIY combination of technologies
> that are needed. Recalling the fact that we have good examples for
> stuff that has to be in the server classpath (logging) this wouldn't
> change the operations side. You still would end up having projects
> willing to change
> the ops defined installation templates.
>
> 2) " If Devs and Ops love Tomcat, let's give them Tomcat-like app servers."
> That's a product thing, right? I mean, that is why David launched
> TomEE ? The problem here is the brand :) I mean ... wait a few
> more years and TomEE is loved by the crowd ... To me this isn't about
> features or stuff. It's about people not willing to change. And
> that is completely fine. Tomcat is a strong brand and I am happy that
> we have them on board with the WebProfile.
>
> 3) Component updates
> That's a mess until today. Whatever component you are looking to
> upgrade in the appserver of your choice. That needs to be fixed.
> Period.
> And that doesn't belong to a specific "Profile".
>
> 4) less possible combination of operating systems/JVM/appserver
> These are issues we should closely look at the current release. All
> the PaaS vendors are looking into this and every outcome here is worth
> to be considered for EE 7. I don't have too many insights here because
> I'm not running my own cloud (unfortunately :)) ) but I guess we could
> get more feedback from RedHat, IBM and SAP beside Oracle ... I would
> love to read about their experiences and what could be defined better
> to suit their needs ...
>
> I guess we both made our points clear ;) Happy to receive further
> feedback from the other members!
>
> - M
>
> On 2 July 2012 09:34, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Exactly, we are working with EE. But what is EE ? A Spring-like
> application
> > running on Tomcat is using Servlets at a minimum, that's EE. I'm not
> saying
> > Tomcat is not a EE app server, I'm saying Tomcat is using a subset of EE
> > (such as Resin/TomEE is using a subset of EE that we called Web Profile).
> >
> > When we created the Web Profile we changed the internal structure of
> > application servers. Since EE 6, app servers are not the same : they are
> > modular, they had to. If we create a Minimal Profile we could change the
> > history of EE and allow all sorts of applications to run on the same
> > application server (using different profile)
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Markus Eisele <myfear_at_web.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Antonio Goncalves
> > Software architect and Java Champion
> >
> > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>



-- 
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>