Thanks a lot Feeman, this is basically the Option #1, or you suggest to
stay on JDK-8 for Jakarta 4.x branch as well? Thank you.
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 10:10 AM Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
