I'm not sure I see why you need spring to start this work. The expected is there already so spring module can still rely on javax, be made jakarta friendly using shade plugin or alike and that's it until a spring native integration is there. Worse case cxf-spring will not be usable with jakarta - which still enabled all other usages, best case if spring makes the transition smooth is that it will work smoothly without more investment than for the rest of the build. The pro of that options is that it will reduce the number of unofficial cxf relocations sooner IMHO.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le lun. 16 août 2021 à 23:40, Andriy Redko <drr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Hi Jim, > > I will try to answer your questions, other guys will definitely share more > thoughts, please see mine inlined. > > >> What's the task for JDK-17 LTS preparation ? Do we need to support > build 3.5.0 with JDK-17 ? > > Build + All tests are green. > Apache Karaf 4.3.3 will support JDK17 so our OSGi test suites will pass. > Besides that, there is still some work to do [1] but at least we have > workarounds. > > >> For Jakarta ee9 support branch 4.x with source code change to support > jakarta namespace , we have to wait for spring and other > >> third party dependencies jakarta ee9 ready. Now we don't know when > these dependencies are all ready and we can start this work. > > This is correct, the earliest we could expect something is Q4/2021 (fe > Spring). > > >> Given there is no features added in Jakarta ee 9.1 besides the > namespace change, we can provide the jakarta calssfier maven artifacts > >> and binary release in 3.6.x or 4.x with transformation or other better > approach will be enough.We provide jakarta ee9 support early, > >> then we can get more feedback on this topic. > > It is definitely the option we have among others to discuss. I have no > doubts that everyone has rough idea of the pros and cons > each option has, as the team we are trying to pick the best path forward. > Jakarta EE 10 is coming in Q1/2022 [2], we should keep it > in mind as well. > > Thank you! > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-8407 > [2] > https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/jakartaee10/JakartaEE10#jakarta-ee-10-release-plan > > > Best Regards, > Andriy Redko > > JM> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:26 PM 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, ...) > > > JM> What's the task for JDK-17 LTS preparation ? Do we need to support > build > JM> 3.5.0 with JDK-17 ? > > JM> For Jakarta ee9 support branch 4.x with source code change to support > JM> jakarta namespace , we have to wait for spring and other > JM> third party dependencies jakarta ee9 ready. Now we don't know when > these > JM> dependencies are all ready and we can start this work. > > JM> Given there is no features added in Jakarta ee 9.1 besides the > namespace > JM> change, we can provide the jakarta calssfier maven artifacts and binary > JM> release in 3.6.x or 4.x with transformation or other better approach > will > JM> be enough.We provide jakarta ee9 support early, then we can get more > JM> feedback on this topic. > > > > > >> 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 > >
