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 <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>