Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use Microprofile BOM/POM #41

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

Use Microprofile BOM/POM #41

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

keilw
Copy link
Contributor

@keilw keilw commented Jun 25, 2017

See #35
This applied the 1.0.0 BOM

@keilw
Copy link
Contributor Author

keilw commented Jul 10, 2017

@kwsutter Was there an issue with this preventing to merge it?

@keilw
Copy link
Contributor Author

keilw commented Aug 11, 2017

@jclingan @kwsutter What exactly is blocking the use of an already published BOM?
If they no longer reflect the current developments in projects and features, those vendor-neutral samples become pretty irrelevant and every vendor does their own things. Maybe that's the idea, can't tell, but if not, it would be great if they reflect the 1.0 BOM which was published in April before a 1.1 BOM or POMs eventually come out first. http://microprofile.io/projects also points to this project, in fact it is one of the first, so people see it when they visit the site.

@atanasg
Copy link

atanasg commented Oct 8, 2017

With MicroProfle 1.2 out now, is it possible to use the dependency as written in the main pdf on http://microprofile.io/:

<dependency> <groupId>org.eclipse.microprofile</groupId> <artifactId>microprofile</artifactId> <version>1.2</version> <type>pom</type> <scope>provided</scope> </dependency>
?

@keilw
Copy link
Contributor Author

keilw commented Nov 1, 2017

Could do, but it is extremely sad having missed a proper release cycle under https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-samples/releases for 1.1.

Do you want to skip it and go right to 1.2 or do 1.1 properly first and then upgrade these samples?

/**
* @author Werner Keil
*/
public class CanonicalHealthCheckResponseProvider implements HealthCheckResponseProvider{
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer the app does not implement the spi but use application server's implementation, e.g. Open Liberty etc. Application should only provide the HealthCheckResponse. One of the benefits of MP programming model is to make app development a lot easier.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1


@Path("/health")
@RequestScoped
public class HealthEndpoint {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think you want this either according to what @Emily-Jiang wrote, but rather just provide an @Health method as e.g. shown in https://github.com/pilhuhn/microprofile-demo/blob/master/src/main/java/de/bsd/microprofiledemo/rest/HealthDemo.java#L29-L37

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The above example looks vendor-neutral as opposed to what @Emily-Jiang suggested sounded a bit more like abandoning a vendor-neutral Eclipse example altogether in favor of examples by OpenLiberty, Wildfly, Kumuluz, etc. ?;-O

@keilw
Copy link
Contributor Author

keilw commented Jan 12, 2018

I'm closing this now, MP 1.3 has already been out. I think it would be about time, the samples match some release, otherwise they become outdated and useless.

@keilw keilw closed this Jan 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants