I’m not sure exactly how it impacts this decision, but IIUC the geronimo cdi spec jar is rather essential for some uses as it has OSGI support whereas IIUC the eclipse/jakarta one doesn’t.
Personally I’m afraid I’m totally on Romain’s side so far, AFAICT Gurkan’s proposal will only add difficulty for developers and probably users. Although I haven’t been active here for years I might even vote. thanks David Jencks > On Jun 7, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Tomcat works with branches since years without any issue. >> All projects we tried to use branches we abandoned branches just after >> having done them. >> It is fine if the old branch is no more used but here we know we will >> maintain javax branch more than jakarta one for some time so I think we >> should avoid it while it is not justified or one of the 2 branches (javax) >> is "almost dead". > > Working with branches always happens in all open source projects. And > there are times when it is logical to create the branch. Jakarta EE 9 API > migration is the best time to create such a branch. Eventually, we will > create such a branch in Jakarta EE 10. > > Fact there will be no more javax is useless IMHO, only question we should >> care about is "do we have javax users?" and should we work on javax branch >> enough to care about having 2 duplicate branches. Answer is obviously yes >> and more than jakarta users today, therefore I think for some months (maybe >> a few years) we should stick to javax as our primary branch and ensure the >> alignments and bugfixes can trivially - == without any action from dev - be >> ported. It is what we have today. >> > What could be more natural than maintaining branches (with backporting from > master only if necessary). With Jakarta EE 10, we will eventually create > the branch for supporting the EE 8. Also, for the release versioning, it is > nice to have a 3.x release. The community will notice that 3.x is the > starting point of Jakarta EE support. Will you release 2.x with the > intention of supporting Jakarta EE 9? I am personally not positive on this. > I think, 3.x release will also get more interest even if the functionality > and API stay the same. We can prepare the press release for it. > > Note we shouldn't depend on jakarta/javax api anyway (neither as groupId >> nor as transitive dep so this change must stay a noop for consumers). >> > What is the problem of depending on the official Jakarta EE CDI API? It is > an Apache friendly license. Instead of maintaining the Geronimo CDI API > internally, it is more logical to use Jakarta EE official CDI API and > maintain this API with EE4J community. > > would also appreciate if you do a vote if you can point out the breaking >> changes - except the package renaming - justifying to fork ourself and what >> does not work with current solution, can ease the decision/vote. >> Today using jakarta/EE9 API is quite easy ( >> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/master/src/site/apt/jakarta.apt >> ). >> We should absolutely enhance the pom experience though but it is trivial to >> do at maven level - I was envisionning to do it in shade plugin to be more >> precise. >> > I know that there will be no functional change. But, I am also against > shading for jakarta.*. If there will be no change on Jakarta EE 10, will we > continue to shade? What happens when there will be a change in EJB, JMS > etc specifications but no change in CDI in Jakarta EE 10? Also, VOTING is > the natural thing to do for the community decision. If the community would > like to keep it as it is via shading, it is fine. > >> >> To try to rephrase/clarify my questionning today: you ask for jakarta >> support, we already have it in a dev and project efficient way so why >> should we change since I don't hink there is anything new - once again if >> API starts to fully break discussion is different but github doesnt reflect >> that? >> > This is not just for Jakarta EE 9 support. As we know, there will be no API > (functional) change, only package renaming. But, I want to emphasize that > with such turning points, it is so logical to integrate official Jakarta > CDI API into our master (removing the geronimo-cdi), and release our new > 3.x version and let the public know that OWB supports official CDI API > beginning with 3.x release. Yeah, shading is an option for package renaming > but think long term. Also, I am really against the shading. It really > disturbs the users which depend on OWB implementation. For example, > currently Glassfish supports Weld integration but one can also implement > OWB to replace Weld in Glassfish. Therefore, instead of using the shaded > version, it is really important to have the full Jakarta EE CDI API in our > poms. You will still have javax.* dependency in ur POMs even if doing a > shade. This is not good idea to still maintain javax.* in our POM files. > > What are other opinions before formal voting? > Regards. > Gurkan > > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:02 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le dim. 7 juin 2020 à 18:49, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> Tomcat created branch 10 for jakarta ee 9. Glassfish is also on master. >>> >> >> Tomcat works with branches since years without any issue. >> All projects we tried to use branches we abandoned branches just after >> having done them. >> It is fine if the old branch is no more used but here we know we will >> maintain javax branch more than jakarta one for some time so I think we >> should avoid it while it is not justified or one of the 2 branches (javax) >> is "almost dead". >> >> >>> sorry but not understand the resistance on this? will you always shade ? >>> >> >> As mentionned, until API needs changes we can't easily handle - today there >> is no change. >> >> >>> creating the new master and maintain the 2.x branch, is the best logical >>> way. there will be no javax.* any more. Tomcat maintains 3 branches and >> 1 >>> master. only maintains 1 branch and 1 master is totally fine. >>> >> >> Fact there will be no more javax is useless IMHO, only question we should >> care about is "do we have javax users?" and should we work on javax branch >> enough to care about having 2 duplicate branches. Answer is obviously yes >> and more than jakarta users today, therefore I think for some months (maybe >> a few years) we should stick to javax as our primary branch and ensure the >> alignments and bugfixes can trivially - == without any action from dev - be >> ported. It is what we have today. >> >> >>> >>> I will propose a vote shortly to decide on to create a master with 3.x >> with >>> fully support of jakarta with a normal pom dependency with jakarta api. >>> >> >> Note we shouldn't depend on jakarta/javax api anyway (neither as groupId >> nor as transitive dep so this change must stay a noop for consumers). >> I would also appreciate if you do a vote if you can point out the breaking >> changes - except the package renaming - justifying to fork ourself and what >> does not work with current solution, can ease the decision/vote. >> Today using jakarta/EE9 API is quite easy ( >> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/master/src/site/apt/jakarta.apt >> ). >> We should absolutely enhance the pom experience though but it is trivial to >> do at maven level - I was envisionning to do it in shade plugin to be more >> precise. >> >> To try to rephrase/clarify my questionning today: you ask for jakarta >> support, we already have it in a dev and project efficient way so why >> should we change since I don't hink there is anything new - once again if >> API starts to fully break discussion is different but github doesnt reflect >> that? >> >> >>> >>> Regs >>> Gurkan >>> >>> >>> On 7 Jun 2020 Sun at 18:05 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Today we don't need, tomorrow I don't know but while API does not >> change >>>> (except the package) we shouldn't fork ourself IMHO (cause it is what >> you >>>> propose as a consequence). >>>> If it becomes necessary let's do it but my vote is to stay lazy on >> that. >>>> >>>> >>>> side note for G API discussion belongs to dev@G but it is less an >> issue >>> to >>>> fork from now since we rarely update the API, the side note here is >> that >>>> CDI SE is already fully runnable on ASF stack with jakarta package >> since >>>> some weeks or months, we did all the needed releases. >>>> >>>> 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 dim. 7 juin 2020 à 16:42, Thomas Andraschko < >>>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> AFAIR we dont need it as we shade a -jakarta.jar via our build. >>>>> As EE9 just changes the namespace, it's perfectly fine. >>>>> >>>>> I'm actually also a supporter of doing a hard cut but it's not >> required >>>> and >>>>> we can do it for EE 10. >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail >>>>>> >>>>> Virenfrei. >>>>> www.avast.com >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail >>>>>> >>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>>>> >>>>> Am So., 7. Juni 2020 um 16:35 Uhr schrieb Gurkan Erdogdu < >>>>> cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> We need to maintain two branches >>>>>> >>>>>> EE 8 for javax.* package 2.x branch >>>>>> EE 9 for jakarta.* package 3.x master >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Jun 2020 Sun at 16:25 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll probably restate my position on that: if EE 9 brings >>>>> significatively >>>>>>> new API yes - a quick review shows it is 1-1 with EE 8 but I can >>> have >>>>>>> missed sthg, looked quite fast. if EE9==EE8 then we can stay as >> we >>>> are >>>>> I >>>>>>> think avoiding to maintain two branches we can't merge regularly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 dim. 7 juin 2020 à 10:26, Gurkan Erdogdu < >>>> cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> >>>>> a >>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> After the 2.x release, can we get the master to 3.0.0 to >> support >>>>>> upcoming >>>>>>>> Jakarta EE 9 release with jakarta.* namespace? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also favor to use the Jakarta EE CDI API instead of using the >>>>> Apache >>>>>>>> based api. >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Gurkan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Gurkan Erdogdu >>>>>>>> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gurkan Erdogdu >>>>>> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Gurkan Erdogdu >>> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >>> >> > > > -- > Gurkan Erdogdu > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
