[arrowleaf]

Serious question, is Red Hat a risk to the Quarkus project? I haven't started any new applications on anything but Quarkus for a couple of years. I would love to use Helidon, but the features and production stability just aren't there yet.

[exabrial]

Any single vendor product that does not conform to a specification is, ergo Quarkus (was).

Now, Quarkus _finally_ got pulled into JakartaEE certification kicking and screaming, however, it has a million out-of-spec features that I see as risky and likely to break in the future... Spring Framework is now big fat and ugly for this reason!

Quarkus's initial philosophy of "Kubernetes first" really isn't such a good rally cry anymore. They've toned down on that, but it does influence the framework to this day.

I think if you program and stick to "just the" Jakarta Spec you are in good hands (which Quarkus now implements, along with other APIs). CDI absolutely rocks and is probably the easiest to write fast code for, but also make it composable so it's very testable.

I'm hoping someday the Apache Foundation (maybe the TomEE crew?) comes out with a leaner competitor to Quarkus, basically something thats "just the cdi container" and you can pull in stuff as needed.

[_ea1k]

Red Hat owns Quarkus, so they are a risk or a benefit depending upon your perspective.