Welcome to the seventh issue of Hashtag Jakarta EE!
One of the most common questions I get when talking about Jakarta EE is: “How can I help?”. Well, here is a suggestion: The post “Help wanted: improved signature test tool” by Bill Shannon on the Jakarta EE Community mailing list asks for help improving the signature test tool used by the TCK.
In short, what we need help with is to fix the features of this tool to make it possible to either limit the recorded signatures to the API being tested or exclude the signatures for the JDK classes. See the GitHub issue for details.
MicroProfile will produce specs and it is up to others how they adopt or consume them
This week’s MicroProfile Hangout was dedicated to Working Group discussions. The agenda was, as always, set by the participants and the topic this week quickly became technical alignment between MicroProfile and related technologies, such as Jakarta EE. The result of this discussion is summarized by John Clingan in the thread MicroProfile Working Group discussion – Push vs pull on the MicroProfile mailing list. Basically, what this approach means is that MicroProfile will produce specs and it is up to others how they adopt or consume them.
There is an interesting Twitter discussion going on around Quarkus, CDI and the requirements to claim MicroProfile compatibility. This discussion has moved over to various threads on the MicroProfile mailing list. The disagreement within the MicroProfile community is whether the Java EE specifications (JAX-RS, JSON-B, JSON-P, and CDI) are a part of MicroProfile or just referenced APIs. Why this distinction is important is worth a blog post on its own, but the gist of it is that if CDI is a part of the platform, a product cannot be claimed to be compatible with MicroProfile unless the CDI TCK is passed.
For reference, I have included the graphics describing the content of the first (1.0) and the current (3.2) release of MicroProfile below.
