Hey Jim, Romain,
Thank you guys, I think Romain's suggestion to move 3.5.x to JDK-11 baseline is
good idea, we would
still be maintaining 3.4.x for a while, covering JDK-8 based deployments.
Regarding Jakarta, yes, I
certainly remember the discussion regarding the build time approach, personally
with time I came to the
conclusion that this is not the best option for at least 2 reasons:
- differences between source vs binary artifacts are very confusing (source
imports javax,
binary has jakarta, or vice versa), I think we all run into that from time
to time
- Jakarta is the way to go, the mainstream should have first class support
Just my 5 cents, but we certainly should consider this approach as well, there
are good points to
follow it, summarizing what we have at the moment:
Option #1:
- release 3.5.0 in preparation to JDK-17 LTS, keeping JDK-8 as baseline
- move master to 3.6.x (4.x?) with JDK-11 as the minimal required JDK version
(Jetty 10, ...)
- branch off 5.x (4.x?) to continue the work on supporting Jakarta 9.0+, with
JDK-11 as the minimal
required JDK version (Jetty 11, ...)
Option #2:
- release 3.5.0 in preparation to JDK-17 LTS, use JDK-11 as baseline
- handle javax by a build setup (with api validation at build time to avoid
regressions) and use jakarta package as main api in the project (Romain), or
adding a new maven module to transform cxf artifacts with jakarta package
name (Jim)
Option #3:
- release 3.5.0 in preparation to JDK-17 LTS, use JDK-11 as baseline
- move master to 4.x to continue the work on supporting Jakarta 9.0+, with
JDK-11 as the minimal
required JDK version (Jetty 11, ...)
Thank you!
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
JM> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:05 AM Andriy Redko <drr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>> I would like to initiate (or better to say, resume) the discussion
>> regarding CXF 3.5.x and beyond.
>> The 3.5.x has been in the making for quite a while but has not seen any
>> releases yet. As far as
>> I know, we have only pending upgrade to Apache Karaf 4.3.3 (on SNAPSHOT
>> now) so be ready to meet
>> JDK 17 LTS next month. I think this is a good opportunity to release 3.5.0
>> but certainly looking
>> for ideas and opinions here. Importantly, I think for 3.5.x the JDK-8
>> should be supported as the minimal
>> required JDK version (just an opinion since JDK-8 is still very widely
>> used).
>> On the other side, many libraries (Jetty, wss4j, ...) are bumping the
>> baseline to JDK-11. The work
>> @Colm is doing to update to OpenSaml 4.x [1] is a good argument to have
>> the JDK-11+ release line. Should
>> we have a dedicated 3.6.x or 4.x.x branch(es) for that?
>> Last but not least, Jakarta 9.0+ support. Last year we briefly talked
>> about it [2], at this moment it
>> looks like having dedicated release line (4.x/5.x) with Jakarta artifacts
>> is beneficial in long term.
>> Large chunk [3] of work has been already done in this direction. The
>> Spring 6 milestones with Jakarta
>> support are expected to land in Q4/2021 [4] but I am not sure what plans
>> Apache Karaf team has, @Freeman
>> do you have any insights?
JM> For Jakarta EE9 support , the another option could be adding a new maven
JM> module to transform cxf artifacts
JM> with jakarta package name. This transformed artifact can coexist with the
JM> javax namespace with "jakarta" classifier,
JM> and we don't have to maintain two branches until Jakarta EE10 and there are
JM> new features added.
JM> Other projects like hibernate and jackson use this shade plugin or Eclipse
JM> transformer to support jakarta ee9:
JM>
https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/blob/main/hibernate-core-jakarta/hibernate-core-jakarta.gradle#L100
JM>
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-jaxrs-providers/blob/2.12/json/pom.xml#L115
>> To summarize briefly:
>> - release 3.5.0 in preparation to JDK-17 LTS, keeping JDK-8 as baseline
>> - move master to 3.6.x (4.x?) with JDK-11 as the minimal required JDK
>> version (Jetty 10, ...)
>> - branch off 5.x (4.x?) to continue the work on supporting Jakarta 9.0+,
>> with JDK-11 as the minimal
>> required JDK version (Jetty 11, ...)
>> I think it is very clear that maintaining JavaEE + JDK8 / JavaEE + JDK11 /
>> Jakarta + JDK11 would consume
>> much more time from the team, but I am not sure we have other options if
>> we aim to evolve and keep CXF
>> up to date. Any thought, ideas, comments, suggestions guys?
>> Thank you!
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/cxf/tree/opensaml4
>> [2]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/202012.mbox/%3c1503263798.20201226124...@gmail.com%3E
>> [3] https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/737
>> [4]
>> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/issues/25354#issuecomment-875915960
>> Best Regards,
>> Andriy Redko
