To be clearer, my previous reply wasnt proposing it as a solution, I was enquiring if that was the workaround that was being considered to enact the suggestion (or implicitly if the issue it creates had not been noticed yet).
I personally think the simpler and more obvious solution to the 'problem' is to just not introduce the issue. On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 08:00, Domenico Francesco Bruscino <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have created a issue to track this task: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3221 > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 14:56, Domenico Francesco Bruscino < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I think the best option to solve this problem is to use the solution > > proposed Robbie: > > have the artemis-pom pointing to the EE 8 versions, and override those in > > modules needing the EE 9 versions instead > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 14:46, Emmanuel Hugonnet <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Yes but then you will have the same GA as Jakarta EE 9 except for the > >> version. > >> > >> Le 10/03/2021 à 14:35, Clebert Suconic a écrit : > >> > My understanding is that eclipse EE8 is a direct replacement of > >> > geronimo-JMS... so it can just be replaced. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:11 AM Robbie Gemmell < > >> [email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> It seems like this could make for a bit of awkward dependency > >> >> management in some cases, from then requiring 2 different versions of > >> >> the same dependencies within the regular build. Is the thinking to > >> >> perhaps introduce separate properties for the different versions > >> >> needed and have the parent pom change to use the EE 8 versions where > >> >> needed, and override that in modules needing the EE 9 version instead? > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 21:42, Domenico Francesco Bruscino > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> > >> >>> ActiveMQ Artemis depends on some Apache Geronimo Specs artifacts [1] > >> >>> and Javax artifacts [2] for the Java EE APIs. Most of them could be > >> >>> migrated to their respective Jakarta EE artifacts, given that Jakarta > >> EE > >> >> 8 > >> >>> provides backwards compatibility within the javax* namespace. > >> >>> The license of Jakarta EE artifacts is Eclipse Public License 2.0 [3] > >> so > >> >>> they may be included in binary form within an Apache product, see ASF > >> 3RD > >> >>> PARTY LICENSE POLICY [4]. > >> >>> Do you have any concern on migrating to Jakarta EE 8 artifacts? > >> >>> > >> >>> [1] > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-annotation_1.2_spec/1.0 > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0.1 > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec/2.0.0 > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jaspic_1.0_spec/1.0 [5] > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jaxrs_2.1_spec/1.1 > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/1.1 [6] > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jms_2.0_spec/1.0-alpha-2 [5] > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-json_1.0_spec/1.0-alpha-1 [5] > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/1.1.1 [5] > >> >>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-servlet_3.0_spec/1.0 [6] > >> >>> > >> >>> [2] > >> >>> javax/activation/activation/1.1.1 [5] > >> >>> javax/annotation/javax.annotation-api/1.3.2 > >> >>> javax/enterprise/cdi-api/1.2 [6] > >> >>> javax/inject/javax.inject/1 [5] > >> >>> javax/management/j2ee/javax.management.j2ee-api/1.1.1 > >> >>> javax/xml/bind/jaxb-api/2.3.1 [5] > >> >>> > >> >>> [3] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ > >> >>> > >> >>> [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > >> >>> > >> >>> [5] this artifact is included in the release package > >> >>> > >> >>> [6] no jakarta artifact with a matching version exits > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> Domenico > >> > >>
