There are some string literals in source code using javax.*. for example, in BeansDeployer, public static final String JAVAX_ENTERPRISE_PACKAGE = "javax.enterprise.";. How is the shading plugin fixes these? Regards. Gurkan
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:55 PM Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > They also impled the bda differently than us making it only usable for >> single bda apps and created arc@quarkus which violates that, so not sure >> we >> should copy what others do. I tend to prefer to add thinking on top of >> that >> in the context of our project which is diff than the RI (by design and by >> workforce). >> > This is not copying but not going into discussion more. > > >> I can agree that in one year we reverse the pattern, shade becoming javax. >> But since we cant enforce anyone to do the sync between branches and due >> to >> past years contributions stats, we must not go that way IMHO, it would >> either make us expose 2 bad branches or kill our resources for no user >> gains. Indeed that is my opinion but from the stats i have today it is my >> conclusion. > > You have concerns about the community, understanding. > > Please discuss it on G, it does not impact OWB - and btw this is not what >> had been said ;). >> > Thanks for the pointer > > Regards. > Gurkan > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 9:50 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le dim. 7 juin 2020 à 20:39, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >> > > >> > > So to conclude on this point not belonging to OWB, we still need our >> fork >> > > and eclipse always answered saying "yes we want OSGi [but we don't >> really >> > > know]" - and I know eclipse+EE has a lot of OSGi experts but they >> don't >> > > work on that factually so OSGi is done at minimal cost. >> > >> > OK thanks for the clarification. I am not an OSGI expert. >> > >> > Ok Gurkan, let's be concrete, do you - you as you personally - accept >> and >> > > commit yourself to port any commit to one of the two branches to the >> > other >> > > for all the time the project is at apache? >> > > if so fine, if not -1 to create us unneeded (+ still unjustified by >> > facts) >> > > work. >> > >> > :=) >> > Hey, I'm just proposing what I think about. If nobody cares about it >> or is >> > not beneficial, it is ok, and also there is no need to VOTE (This is why >> > I'd like to get more opinions on it). >> >> >> It is fine, just wanted to emphasis the consequence and what it means for >> the project. >> >> But look at Weld, they did the >> > update, https://github.com/weld and full of updating their pom to use >> > jakarta.* >> > >> >> They also impled the bda differently than us making it only usable for >> single bda apps and created arc@quarkus which violates that, so not sure >> we >> should copy what others do. I tend to prefer to add thinking on top of >> that >> in the context of our project which is diff than the RI (by design and by >> workforce). >> >> >> >> > Currently all of the OWB modules (webbeans-ee, webbeans-el22 etc), use >> > geronimo-...specs which depend on javax.*. Today or tomorrow, we will >> > eventually move to jakarta.* namespace. Instead of working with such >> > shading plugin stuff as a workaround, I just offer to take the master to >> > jakarta.* and update all OWB modules' dependency from javax.* to >> jakarta.* >> > official APIS. This is not related to who will maintain the branches. >> You >> > know that ASF works as a voluntary based approach. You can not push >> anybody >> > to work on anything as in commercial companies. >> > >> >> I can agree that in one year we reverse the pattern, shade becoming javax. >> But since we cant enforce anyone to do the sync between branches and due >> to >> past years contributions stats, we must not go that way IMHO, it would >> either make us expose 2 bad branches or kill our resources for no user >> gains. Indeed that is my opinion but from the stats i have today it is my >> conclusion. >> >> >> > Also, regarding the cost and energy you mention to maintain the branch, >> via >> > Geronimo specs, you will need to update all of the Geronimo Specs and >> > maintain them. I think this is not rational because now, jakarta.* >> official >> > API license is EPL and Apache friendly. Why do I need to maintain for >> > example Geronimo EL? >> > >> >> Please discuss it on G, it does not impact OWB - and btw this is not what >> had been said ;). >> >> >> >> > Regards. >> > Gurkan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 9:25 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Le dim. 7 juin 2020 à 20:20, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> >> a >> > > écrit : >> > > >> > > > Hi David >> > > > >> > > > 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. >> > > > > >> > > > No, it is not correct. It has OSGI support. GlassFish is an OSGI >> based >> > > > server.You can grap the code from >> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/cdi >> > > and >> > > > build. It has OSGI enabled MANIFEST.MF file. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Not, it is not correct Gurkan ;). >> > > jakarta does NOT support OSGi properly, it does it the old way and >> break >> > > several rules. For instance last CDI spec jar contains: >> > > >> > > Manifest-Version: 1.0 >> > > Bundle-Description: APIs for CDI (Contexts and Dependency Injection fo >> > > r Java) >> > > Bundle-License: https://repository.jboss.org/licenses/apache-2.0.txt >> > > Bundle-SymbolicName: jakarta.enterprise.cdi-api >> > > Built-By: default >> > > Bnd-LastModified: 1590678420932 >> > > Bundle-ManifestVersion: 2 >> > > Bundle-DocURL: https://jboss.org >> > > Bundle-Vendor: JBoss by Red Hat, Inc. >> > > Import-Package: jakarta.el;version="4.0",jakarta.inject;version="[2.0, >> > > 3)",jakarta.interceptor;version="[2.0,3)" >> > > Require-Capability: osgi.ee;filter:="(&(osgi.ee >> =JavaSE)(version=1.8))" >> > > Tool: Bnd-2.4.1.201501161923 >> > > Originally-Created-By: Apache Maven Bundle Plugin >> > > Export-Package: jakarta.decorator;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterpr >> > > ise.inject",jakarta.enterprise.context;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.e >> > > nterprise.util,jakarta.inject",jakarta.enterprise.context.control;ver >> > > sion="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.context,jakarta.interceptor",jak >> > > arta.enterprise.context.spi;version="3.0",jakarta.enterprise.event;ve >> > > rsion="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.util",jakarta.enterprise.inject >> > > ;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.context,jakarta.enterprise.u >> > > til,jakarta.inject",jakarta.enterprise.inject.literal;version="3.0";u >> > > ses:="jakarta.enterprise.util,jakarta.inject",jakarta.enterprise.inje >> > > ct.se >> ;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.inject,jakarta.enterpri >> > > se.inject.spi",jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi;version="3.0";uses:="jak >> > > arta.el,jakarta.enterprise.context.spi,jakarta.enterprise.event,jakar >> > > ta.enterprise.inject,jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi.configurator,jakar >> > > ta.interceptor",jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi.configurator;version="3 >> > > .0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.context.spi,jakarta.enterprise.event,ja >> > > karta.enterprise.inject,jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi,jakarta.enterpr >> > > ise.util",jakarta.enterprise.util;version="3.0" >> > > Bundle-Name: CDI APIs >> > > Bundle-Version: 3.0.0.M4 >> > > Build-Jdk-Spec: 1.8 >> > > Created-By: Apache Maven Bundle Plugin >> > > Build-Jdk: 1.8.0_202 >> > > >> > > Where are the osgi.serviceloader and osgi.contract ? >> > > This is important and used by OSGi-CDI for example (even if it can be >> > > worked around). >> > > >> > > So to conclude on this point not belonging to OWB, we still need our >> fork >> > > and eclipse always answered saying "yes we want OSGi [but we don't >> really >> > > know]" - and I know eclipse+EE has a lot of OSGi experts but they >> don't >> > > work on that factually so OSGi is done at minimal cost. >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Gurkan’s proposal will only add difficulty for developers and >> probably >> > > > > users. >> > > > > >> > > > What is the difficulty? The change will only affect maintaining the >> > > javax.* >> > > > branch and fully renamed jakarta.* dependencies in master. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Ok Gurkan, let's be concrete, do you - you as you personally - accept >> and >> > > commit yourself to port any commit to one of the two branches to the >> > other >> > > for all the time the project is at apache? >> > > if so fine, if not -1 to create us unneeded (+ still unjustified by >> > facts) >> > > work. >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Regards. >> > > > Gurkan >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:58 PM David Jencks < >> david.a.jen...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > 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 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Gurkan Erdogdu >> > > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Gurkan Erdogdu >> > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > >> > > > -- > Gurkan Erdogdu > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
