Here we are [1], Dan has created 4.0.0 migration guide a while back, I filled it a bit. Thanks!
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CXF20DOC/4.0+Migration+Guide Best Regards, Andriy Redko AR> Yes, I will create the page shortly and share on the list. AR> Best Regards, AR> Andriy Redko JM>> +1 to document this when we tag the release. There is a migration guide for JM>> each release like: https://cxf.apache.org/docs/35-migration-guide.html. JM>> Can we add this update in the 4.0 migration guide ? JM>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 12:28 AM Alessio Soldano <asold...@apache.org> wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> I would suggest to deal with this in documentation, restricting runtime jdk >>> support to JDK17+ is actually going to create problems to some integration >>> (Spring is effectively optional already), while not really giving us much >>> (if you know you use Spring, just use JDK17, no need for it to be >>> mandatory). Btw, I believe JakartaEE 9.1 was meant to be used with JDK 8 or >>> 11; support for JDK 17 is something coming with JakartaEE 10 afair. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 1:34 PM Jim Ma <mail2ji...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > 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 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Alessio Soldano >>> >>> Manager, Software Engineering >>> >>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> >>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>
