Looks like OpenStack isn't the only Open Source PaaS community out there:
http://openlife.cc/blogs/2012/july/cloudstack-has-proof-foundations-way-create-foss-community
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:27 PM, David Blevins <david.blevins_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:44 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> I really really hope TomEE can address that. I don't mean that as a plug
> for TomEE but as a very direct "I hear you and agree on the severity of the
> problem". Not just agree but to the point where even though I work on
> Geronimo and already had "a server to sell" it was clear until Tomcat was
> certified we'd be stuck in this pattern. I hope TomEE can help close the
> gap between Tomcat and JavaEE. It'll take time though.
>
> On the profile subject, there are a lot of things Tomcat has chosen not to
> support:
>
> - @DataSourceDefinition
> - @Resource(lookup="..")
> - <env-entry> of type Class or Enum;
> - Global JNDI
> - nearly all built-in java:comp/foo objects
> - TransactionManager or UserTransaction
> - JPA (@PersistenceContext or @PersistenceUnit or JTA-managed
> EntityManagers)
>
> Not a complete list, but gives an idea of the gaps.
>
> I suspect even if we created a Minimal Profile with Tomcat in mind and it
> included any of the above, Tomcat would not support it.
>
>
> -David
>
>
> > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene_at_redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > 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 people.
> >
> >
> > On 6/29/12 4:46 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
> > Antonio,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Werner
> >
> > 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
> > (
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason T. Greene
> > JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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™"