+1

1.9.x seems very stable with minimal updates so it is unlikely to be
much of a burden to keep it alive for pre-Jakarta use.

I could see some people say setting a JDK 17 minimum would be
aggressive, but those starting new Jakarta projects or going through
the upgrade work for an older project should really be moving up to
it.

-C

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 6:48 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> There was a bunch of user requests on the mailing list  to add support for 
> Jakarta enterprise namespaces.
> I tried to implement this via shading but it seems not to be sufficient.
> The problem with shading is that the poms only have classifier to access 
> deltaspike.
> This is especially a problem with transitive dependencies.
>
> The other point is that we had many discussions about shipping an upgraded 
> version of DeltaSpike and deprecate/remove some obsolete APIs.
> So let's go big and why not move up to jakartaEE namespace and Java17 at the 
> same time?
>
> Potential candidates for dropping coming to my mind:
>
> .) BeanManagerProvider/BeanProvider. We historically kept this for 2 reasons. 
> 1.) backward compatibility with CDI-1.0, 2.) in EARs this is still the only 
> way which works to properly access the BeanManager on all containers. 
> CDI.current() is sadly broken in EARs in almost all containers. But since 
> EARs might go away in JakartaEE anyways, I'm fine with dropping it.
>
> .) servlet module. Injecting the various servlet information objects like 
> HttpServletRequest, HttpSession etc is nowadays specified by the CDI spec as 
> well.
>
> .) Many parts of the JSF module are nowadays not needed anymore as well. 
> Remember the times when there was no injection into PhaseListeners and 
> FacesConverters? We did have support for it since ages, the spec added this 
> much later, but they finally did.
>
> .) bean validation module. Those parts are imo all part of the spec nowadays
>
> .) scheduler. I'm not sure about that one. It probably would make sense to 
> implement an own smallish scheduler based on ScheduledExecutor instead of 
> going fully blown quartz?
>
>
>
> wdyt?
>
> I'd go on and create a new umbrella ticket for all the work.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>

Reply via email to