Yes. Spring is optional for CXF runtime for a long time. Now all CXF binary classes/artifacts are all JDK-11 version (class major version 55) as Andriy mentioned we set target/source to JDK-11. I believe this setting on CXF at the moment is the best option:
- Users don't need to upgrade the JDK version if they are using CXF without Spring. FWIK, there are a lot of non-Spring CXF users out there. - For the CXF Spring users, because the Spring 6 Jakarta version is JDK-17 baseline and built classes are JDK-17 versions(class major version 61), they have to use JDK17 in runtime to run Spring and CXF. JDK-17 is mandatory from Spring 6 and not from CXF. On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 2:31 AM Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > FWIW, Spring isn't mandatory for CXF, cxf-core only depends on spring > optionally and we don't need to have spring artifacts on the classpath if > we don't want to use spring/spring boot features, and this has been the > case for a very long time. > > Freeman > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 1:22 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I was more referencing the long awaited split of cxf-core (it is still > the > > same old content than for the early jaxws time and without a modular > design > > - this is where spring comes from mainly IIRC) so for a 4.0.0 this sounds > > like a big awaited features (don't start by bringing 1.4M said > otherwise). > > Since several part of OSGi dropped I think it would be good to create > > cxf-spring (and maybe spring-boot thanks some generator like camel). > > Since next release is mainly enabling cxf to hit jakarta, it sounds fine > > for me to drop spring if the refactor is too much and would delay a lot > the > > release - agree on this one. > > But keeping it like that means it will stay for years so likely that cxf > 4 > > will be the same than cxf 3 on this point which would be sad IMHO. > > > > Side note: indeed the obvious answer to that point is "v5" but it is > > pushing again this issue (coming from v2 ;)) and also makes the > versioning > > harder to follow if not pushed too far IMHO. > > > > Hope it makes sense. > > > > 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. 7 nov. 2022 à 19:10, Andriy Redko <drr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback, just to clarify: we won't be dropping > > > Spring > > > (this is basically another "few months long" effort), it is merely to > try > > > to > > > not bring any dependency with JDK-17 baseline (== Spring / Spring Boot > at > > > this moment) by default. It would definitely require more work for the > > > users > > > to wire everything properly but at least that would allow us to > preserve > > > JDK-11 > > > baseline. Apologies if I am rephrasing what you intended to say, just > an > > > attempt to eliminate the possible confusion. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > Think Java 11 is a good baseline as of today - at least to enable > > Jakarta > > > > vendors to use CXF as an implementation and pass tck. > > > > +1 to drop spring if it bothers to get a first 4.0.0 release out, we > > can > > > > catch up later like other dropped integrations and core should be > > > exploded > > > > anyway, it is way too fat for what it does so moving spring out of it > > is > > > > quite a good direction 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. 7 nov. 2022 à 18:06, Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > >> +1 to release CXF 4.0.0. And +1 to release using JDK17 as baseline > > > since we > > > >> upgraded to Spring 6 and Spring Boot 3. > > > > > > >> Thanks to all guys involved in this long process! > > > >> Freeman > > > >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:10 AM Andriy Redko <drr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> +1 to move forward with release (or milestone), but before that, > > there > > > is > > > >>> one issue which > > > >>> I would like to bring up and agree us upon. The initial discussion > > for > > > >>> Jakarta / 4.0.0 [1] concluded > > > >>> on having JDK-11 as a baseline. At the same time, there is a > > > misalignment > > > >>> with Spring 6 / Spring Boot 3 > > > >>> requirements which bumped the baseline to JDK-17. Now, the way we > > build > > > >>> Jakarta / 4.0.0 branch (main) is > > > >>> like this: use JDK-17+ but set target/source to JDK-11. > > > > > > >>> With that being said, the not so good part. Technically, Jakarta / > > > 4.0.0 > > > >>> bits could be used in the > > > >>> projects which are still using JDK-11. But because mostly every > > single > > > >>> piece (starting from cxf-core) depends > > > >>> on Spring, the application fail to start with > > > >>> "java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError" (very easy to confirm > > > >>> on any CXF provided sample). Effectively, the baseline is JDK-17, > not > > > >>> JDK-11 (we have hoped to isolate Spring > > > >>> related implementation but it hasn't happened yet and not sure it > > will > > > in > > > >>> the future). The question: does > > > >>> anyone have a compelling usecase for keeping CXF baseline at JDK-11 > > > level > > > >>> despite being able to run only > > > >>> on JDK-17 or above? If yes, I think we have to make all Spring > > related > > > >>> dependencies optional and document > > > >>> clearly that JDK-17 is needed in case Spring / Spring Boot are > used, > > we > > > >>> surely cannot leave things > > > >>> as-is (in my opinion). If not, I would suggest to set JDK-17 as a > > > >>> baseline. > > > >>> What do you guys think? > > > >>> Thank you. > > > >>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cxf.apache.org/msg17031.html > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > >>> Andriy Redko > > > >>> Monday, November 7, 2022, 8:50:02 AM, you wrote: > > > RMB>>>> +1 to release, there are too much forks out there already so > > better > > > >> to > > > RMB>>>> release partially than not release at all IMHO > > > RMB>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > RMB>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > RMB>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > RMB>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > RMB>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > RMB>>>> < > > > >> > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > RMB>>>> Le lun. 7 nov. 2022 à 14:25, Misagh <misagh.moay...@gmail.com> > a > > > >>> écrit : > > > >>>>> Hello all, > > > > > > >>>>> If possible, I'd like to ask that you allow v4 to ship with a new > > > >>>>> release of wss4j that would contain this change: > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/ws-wss4j/pull/62 > > > >>>>> At the moment, OpenSAML v5 is not released yet, but it is > > anticipated > > > >>>>> to be GA before end of this year, hopefully. > > > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:19 PM Jim Ma <mail2ji...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>>>>> Hi all, > > > >>>>>> After 9 months of work, we finally fixed/worked around all > issues > > > >> for > > > >>>>>> Jakarta support. Now all the cxf tests are passed: > > > >>>>>> https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/CXF/job/CXF-JDK17/848/ and we > > can > > > >>> say > > > >>>>> that > > > >>>>>> CXF successfully migrated to Jakarta namespace(and support > Jakarta > > > > > > >>>>> EE9.1). > > > >>>>>> To get cxf jakarta artifacts/binary available for the CXF > > community > > > >>>>>> especially the user who asked for this jakarta artifacts like > [1] > > > >> and > > > >>>>> get > > > >>>>>> more feedback from our community, do you think it's time to > > release > > > >>> the > > > >>>>> CXF > > > >>>>>> 4.0.0 and what else do you think we should have in this new > > jakarta > > > > > > >>>>> release > > > >>>>>> ? > > > >>>>>> [1] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/kwfg2s5gj72tkgn5c5vdcsvtgdkdm6dl > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>> Jim > > > > > > > > >
