Pete/all,
Thanks, good point.
Most of the points you mentioned we have to handle for both JBoss and
WebLogic in our current project.
And since most of these files and configurations are not standardized, nor
are they e.g. in Tomcat, we need to generate a matching set depending on
the target server.
This is very "Ops" or at least "DevOps" and even in future versions of Java
EE some may remain to the likes of our department rather than the app
server itself.
A lot of these aspects for "Cloud" probably better belong to communities
and projects at let's say OpenStack. Many EG members, at least the big
companies listed can be found there already. Both Oracle and IBM are
missing. Probably one thing to discuss at meetings like JavaOne, why this
is the case and if that could be changed.
Cheers,
Werner
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
> I don't think that defining a minimal profile will bring us this "holy
> grail", as it providing this kind of portability requires a lot more than
> simply specifying what Java EE modules must be available. For this to work
> for anything other than a trivial app, you would also need to require:
>
> * the ability to read Tomcat deployment descriptors
> * require exactly the same classloading structure as Tomcat
> * require exactly the same libraries on the classpath as Tomcat (and which
> version of Tomcat do we target, as this changes all the time...)
> * implement Tomcat proprietary APIs
>
> None of this is really practical, not least because we would be specifying
> a moving target, and specifying something the evolution over which we have
> no control.
>
> So, I would discount this "holy grail" as a reason to provide a minimal
> profile, as it's not really possible to specify it sanely.
>
> Furthermore, like Markus, I think this would significantly devalue Java
> EE, for the reasons he outlined.
>
> On 2 Jul 2012, at 09:07, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> > 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 | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>
>
--
Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member | Eclipse UOMo Lead
Twitter @wernerkeil | #Java_Social | #EclipseUOMo | #OpenDDR
Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil
* Chip-to-Cloud Security Forum: September 19 2012, Nice, French Riviera.
Werner Keil, JCP Executive Committee, JSR-321 EG Member will present
"Trusted Computing API for Java™"