Hello

Of course JBO has to answer, but I can give you some good news too ;)
(sorry for top-posting).

First - Karaf 4.4.x is already JDK11 only (kind of) - because it _can't_ be
compiled using JDK8 - see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-7312
and
https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/karaf-4.4.2/management/server/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/management/internal/Activator.java#L115
- this constant is JDK9+ only.

About Jetty 11 - it's kept in line with 10.x and the only difference is
Servlet API used (4 with `javax.servlet` packages vs. 5 with
`jakarta.servlet` package). Usage in OSGi however is far from ready,
because OSGi CMPN 8.1 is just being released, however:

   - there's no HttpService chapter *at all* - there's only Whiteboard left
   and Web Apps (WABs) chapter is not updated to `jakarta`. See
   https://github.com/osgi/osgi/issues/499
   - Pax Web 10 (yes, 10) is work in progress, because there are lot of
   changes enforced by javax → jakarta migration. See
   https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.web/issues/1802

About Pax Web 9 - actually, it should be a matter of replacing version 8
with 9 without _any problems_ - the release is compatible and because Pax
Web 9 is JDK 11 only, it could switch (with minor changes related to
websocket handling from Jetty 9 to Jetty 10. I think some Karaf 4.4.x soon
could use Pax Web 9 and Jetty 10 - and that's where @Jean-Baptiste Onofré
<j...@nanthrax.net> comment is needed ;)

About SLF4J2 - I just can't help but share an insight into how I work ;)
See:

   - I was working on Pax Web 10 and decided to run OSGi TCKs over it, so
   - I started checking https://github.com/osgi/osgi/ where the TCKs are
   stored, but I saw it's a `bnd` workspace, so
   - I started learning `bnd` and `bndtools`, because I'm pure Maven
   engineer, so
   - I got back to osgi/osgi project to check how they use `bnd` and saw
   that they run TCKs using Github Actions, so
   - I started learning Github Actions, because I never learned them
   because I always have this subconscious angst about exceed free plan, so
   - I decided to take simpler project and add Github Actions support there
   - I chose... Pax Logging, so
   - I got back to Pax Logging and recalled that it's about time to finish
   (created by me) https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/issues/504
   - upgrade to SLF4J 2 with Logback 1.3

Whew - summarizing, SLF4J2 is already supported in `main` branch (2.2.x) of
Pax Logging and all the tests pass - the only issue I found was
https://jira.qos.ch/browse/LOGBACK-1716

So soon (maybe even today) I'm going to release Pax Logging 2.2.1 with:

   - Log4j2 2.19.0 (
   https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/issues/505)
   - Reload4J 1.2.24 (
   https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/issues/509) - just an
   update, no CVEs, no breaking changes
   - SLF4J2 2.0.6 - and I committed a heresy, but pax-logging-api will
   export two major versions (and more minor versions) of `org.slf4j` package:
   1.4.3, 1.5.11, 1.6.6, 1.7.36 and 2.0.6 - the first 4 versions were exported
   for long time, but I've never exported two different major versions before
   - fortunately OSGi can do it ;)
   - Logback 1.3.5 (upgrade from 1.2.11 for SLF4J 1.7.x), because Logback
   1.4.5 is to be used with `jakarta` packages and we don't do it (OSGi CMPN)
   yet.

I hope this long explanation answer is helpful ;)

regards
Grzegorz Grzybek

niedz., 8 sty 2023 o 00:17 Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> napisał(a):

> Hello everyone,
>
> are there any plans for a karaf-4.5.x release?
>
> I think there is a number of breaking changes out there to warrant a
> rather major step:
>
> - Java 11+
> - slf4j-2.0.x
> - logback-1.4.x (Java 11, slf4j-2)
> - pax-web-9.0.x (Java 11, jetty-10.x)
>
> Also, I think it is time to plan for jetty-11, i.e. jakarta.ee
> namespace, as it is invariably coming down the pike, but that is a thing
> of its own.
>
> Key drivers here for me are slf4j-2 (finally out) and jetty-10 (9.4 is
> EOSL). Most of my projects are already on Java 17, all are on Java 11,
> so yeah, I am biased :)
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>

Reply via email to