Inclusion of Jakarta Data in Jakarta EE 11

[ivargrimstad]

Use this issue to discuss whether Jakarta Data should be included in Jakarta EE 11 and where should it be?

Web Profile is a candidate

AB#29

[hantsy]

I have used Microaunt Data and Spring Data in projects, compared to these existing Repository solution, I think Jakarta Data needs more time to enter the Jakarta main release train. Currently in Jakarta EE 10, we lack reactivestreams(or Java 9 Flow) and context propagate support in the core specs, such as http, cdi, tx, etc. Jakarta EE 11 discussion leaves some room for the common spec, we could consider these. Personally I like the idea, and I would like to use all akarta EE specs seamlessly like using Spring in the application development, not spend time researching the gap between specs.

I am not sure if the Jakarta Data 1.0 will include async, and reactive streams( or Java 9 Flow API) support and if they(eg. Java 9 Flow) are supported in other spec(servlet, faces, rest).

Regards,

Hantsy Bai

Self-employed consultant, fullstack developer, agile coach, freelancer/remote worker

GitHub: https://github.com/hantsy

Twitter: @. Medium: @.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 11:24 PM Ivar Grimstad @.***> wrote:

Use this issue to discuss whether Jakarta Data should be included in Jakarta EE 11 and where should it be?

Web Profile is a candidate

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/jakartaee/jakartaee-platform/issues/640, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGQT6CFWUZLIGFAS7WDSNTW7Q4MJANCNFSM6AAAAAAWS35IXQ . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[starksm64]

Red Hat will vote no on its inclusion. It needs more bake time in implementations.

[keilw]

@starksm64 Hopefully Red Hat also finds the time to participate as other provider reps do, especially given its mother company IBM co-chairs the spec? ;-)

Whenever it's considered ready (hopefully by Jakarta EE 12) I would not outrule the Core Platform either, but at least Web sounds fine.

[njr-11]

For all of those who have already decided on a No vote this early on, I'd like to collect your feedback about what is lacking from the 1.0 release of Jakarta Data. (Thank you @hantsy for pointing out that you want to see Reactive/Flow included). We still have 6 months of spec development timeframe at this point, and if you have concerns or specific requirements, it might be possible to add what you believe is lacking to version 1.0. Over-generalized statements that the specification lacks maturity are not particularly helpful and are somewhat confusing given that the established products (Spring Data and Micronaut) are expected to become implementations of Jakarta Data. It would be much more helpful to know exactly what from Spring Data and Micronaut that the Jakarta Data spec hasn't already standardized that you would like to see included.

[starksm64]

This spec is largely a copy of the Spring Data repository effort, and this is not something we fundamentally agree with. We advocate a active record pattern to our users in our products, so fundamentally we disagree with this spec as a general approach for any profile or platform. Given that these cannot have an optional specification, the data spec would have to be getting traction in other EE implementations and generating user interest before we would consider this for a profile or platform.

[njr-11]

Involvement from RedHat to help shape the specification would certainly be welcome. Its current focus on unifying Spring/Micronaut/JNoSQL follows from the contributions of participants.