Hi Andriy, Thanks so much for your summary!
I actually think we should support JDK8 as long as possible, given the fact that CXF is widely used, and some users are not that fast to adopt new JDK versions. Also CXF has started to support JDK11(even more recent JDK versions) for a while, so any keen users can still use CXF with JDK11+(I noticed many users' JDK is JDK11+ from Jira issues). So how about this(a little bit revised from your option 1) Release 3.5.0 in preparation to JDK-17 LTS, keeping JDK-8 as baseline, and in CXF 3.5.0 release notes we need to very clearly declare that since CXF 3.6.0 users should expect JDK-11 as baseline(Or at least JDK-11 would be the primary, and JDK-8 would be the secondary, just like what the latest Apache Camel 3.X does). Move master to 3.6.x with JDK-11 as the baseline. New CXF 4.x branch for new jakarta package name work(whatever methods need to take there), this change definitely deserves a new major version. Best Regards Freeman On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:27 AM Andriy Redko <drr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
