Hi, >From my perspective, there hasn’t been any outcome or consensus on this matter yet. Several people were in favor of Hibernate, while a few had reservations for specific reasons. However, there wasn’t much PMC engagement on this thread.
If I recall correctly, only Jon, Markus, and I commented, and no consensus was reached. Since this is somewhat fundamental, I would have appreciated a broader discussion and hearing more opinions from PMC members to eventually reach a consensus on how to proceed. However, as you may have noticed, the list hasn’t been very responsive lately, which reinforces arguments like those made by Thomas that there isn’t much manpower available right now (to implement an Apache Jakarta Data implementation). Actually, it doesn’t matter at this stage (imho) since we are far from pursuing any certification anyway. For this reason, we could build TomEE 11 without integrating a Data implementation at all (at least for now). While this wouldn’t be spec-compliant, it could be a viable solution given that certification isn’t our current goal atm. In this context, there would be no need to discuss the JPA implementation shipped. >From my perspective, the following areas need attention: (1) Fix the build on Java 21 – address the broken security manager issues in case CXF decides to adopt Java 21 as a baseline. Side note: MP 7+ requires a newer CXF version anyway due to the MP Rest Client. (2) Implement the missing spec features in TomEE (concurency, security) (3) Consider upgrading MicroProfile to 7+ and update/fix the TCK accordingly. If someone wants to work on MP 7+ separately, that’s fine, though it might be challenging if other parts are currently broken. Still, any progress toward EE 11 would be valuable. So, if anyone wants to jump in, feel free. I think we have a lot of silent readers who would be happy to contribute to technical discussions but don’t currently have the time to actively code. Hope it helps. Gruß Richard Am Sonntag, dem 23.11.2025 um 13:35 +0100 schrieb Skander Soltane: > Hello Richard, > > > - Work has started on OpenJPA for JPA 3.2 on a separate branch / > > repo, so > not out to see in the original repo. I think, that help would be > welcome on > their side. Paulo updated the ticket with the current progress and features, which need to be implemented here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2940 The code lives in OPENJPA-2940. So yes, they welcome contributions. > > - We need to discuss how we want to deal with Jakarta Data (new > > spec); > would need to be implemented either as a separate project or in TomEE > itself. > > Can I therefore interpret the outcome of the last discussion on this > subject ([DISCUSS] Future of OpenJPA in TomEE 11 / EE 11 [1]) as > continuing > to use OpenJPA and implementing Jakarta Data either in a new Apache > project > or directly in TomEE? > I am asking because I would like to help with this and with > MicroProfile 7+, but I don't know if this type of discussion can be > held in > advance, > particularly in parallel with this point: > > > - Next step on our side would be to start implementing the changes > > for > the specs (security, concurrency, …) which are implemented in TomEE > itself. > > Thanks > > Skander > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/o8hydq47hvfhqorooql90hc4kf1rbqtk > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 8:10 PM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have just updated our CI build definitions, created tomee-10.x > > and > > merged ee11 into main, so the current development is reflected on > > the main > > part of the GitHub repo ;-) > > > > Gruß > > Richard > > > > > Am 18.11.2025 um 13:37 schrieb Markus Jung <[email protected]>: > > > > > > Hey David, > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 for merging EE11 into the main branch. IMO a main branch > > > is where > > the main development happens and not some sort of stable branch, > > with the > > actual work happening being hidden away in a separate branch. In > > its > > current state it will obviously break the build. For me that's okay > > since > > TomEE 11 is still in its _very_ early stages. IMO fixing these > > tests should > > also be a higher priority than working on e.g. our > > security/concurrency > > implementations. > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Markus > > > > > > On 11/18/25 01:37, David Blevins wrote: > > > > Thanks for this update, Richard. Thanks also Markus for the > > > > work. > > > > > > > > What does everyone think about making this branch the main > > > > branch? > > > > > > > > People looking for stable branches can easily find them. > > > > People > > looking to see activity in main can easily miss the branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2025, at 12:18 AM, Richard Zowalla > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Markus and myself started the work on EE11 on this branch: > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > What is currently done: > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Markus upgraded the EE API Shade to EE11. Notably, some > > > > > APIs were > > dropped that we still need in TomEE, so work was done to add those > > APIs > > back into TomEE (JAXB, etc.). > > > > > 2. ) We are currently using a custom CXF fork based on Reta’s > > > > > work on > > CXF-8828 [2]. Similar to EE10, I forked his work branch and created > > an > > intermediate custom release until CXF provides something official. > > The > > forked code is available here: [3]. > > > > > 3.) Although EE11 targets Java 17/21, the CXF team would like > > > > > to > > require Java 21. I’ve commented on that, but it would be great if > > others > > could also voice their preference for Java 17 over Java 21 as the > > baseline. > > > > > An alternative would be to adopt Java 21 as the baseline for > > > > > TomEE 11: > > [4]. Currently, the baseline on the ee11 branch is set to Java 21 > > (as the > > intermediate CXF fork did require it). > > > > > 4.) Build looks good so far. The tests, which are failing > > > > > right now, > > are all related to the removal of the SecurityManager in Java 21. > > The build > > is here: [5] > > > > > > > > > > On our upstream dependencies: > > > > > > > > > > - Work has started on OpenJPA for JPA 3.2 on a separate > > > > > branch / repo, > > so not out to see in the original repo. I think, that help would be > > welcome > > on their side. > > > > > - CXF has also started working on EE11 (see above) > > > > > - OWB also started for the CDI part. > > > > > - MyFaces is already EE 11 ready (afaik) > > > > > > > > > > What needs to be done: > > > > > > > > > > - Next step on our side would be to start implementing the > > > > > changes for > > the specs (security, concurrency, …) which are implemented in TomEE > > itself. > > > > > - We need to discuss how we want to deal with Jakarta Data > > > > > (new spec); > > would need to be implemented either as a separate project or in > > TomEE > > itself. > > > > > - Look into MicroProfile 7+ upgrades ;-) > > > > > > > > > > More updates will follow as the work progresses. > > > > > Feedback, testing, and comments are very welcome. > > > > > > > > > > Gruß > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/ee11 > > > > > [2] https://github.com/reta/cxf/tree/CXF-8828 > > > > > [3] https://github.com/rzo1/cxf/tree/CXF-8828 > > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-8828 > > > > > [5] https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/tomee11-full/ > > > > > > > > > > > > 7+, but I don't know if this type of discussion can be held in > advance, > particularly in parallel with this point: > > > - Next step on our side would be to start implementing the changes > > for > the specs (security, concurrency, …) which are implemented in TomEE > itself. > > Thanks > > Skander > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/o8hydq47hvfhqorooql90hc4kf1rbqtk > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 8:10 PM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have just updated our CI build definitions, created tomee-10.x > > and > > merged ee11 into main, so the current development is reflected on > > the main > > part of the GitHub repo ;-) > > > > Gruß > > Richard > > > > > Am 18.11.2025 um 13:37 schrieb Markus Jung <[email protected]>: > > > > > > Hey David, > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 for merging EE11 into the main branch. IMO a main branch > > > is where > > the main development happens and not some sort of stable branch, > > with the > > actual work happening being hidden away in a separate branch. In > > its > > current state it will obviously break the build. For me that's okay > > since > > TomEE 11 is still in its _very_ early stages. IMO fixing these > > tests should > > also be a higher priority than working on e.g. our > > security/concurrency > > implementations. > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Markus > > > > > > On 11/18/25 01:37, David Blevins wrote: > > > > Thanks for this update, Richard. Thanks also Markus for the > > > > work. > > > > > > > > What does everyone think about making this branch the main > > > > branch? > > > > > > > > People looking for stable branches can easily find them. > > > > People > > looking to see activity in main can easily miss the branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2025, at 12:18 AM, Richard Zowalla > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Markus and myself started the work on EE11 on this branch: > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > What is currently done: > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Markus upgraded the EE API Shade to EE11. Notably, some > > > > > APIs were > > dropped that we still need in TomEE, so work was done to add those > > APIs > > back into TomEE (JAXB, etc.). > > > > > 2. ) We are currently using a custom CXF fork based on Reta’s > > > > > work on > > CXF-8828 [2]. Similar to EE10, I forked his work branch and created > > an > > intermediate custom release until CXF provides something official. > > The > > forked code is available here: [3]. > > > > > 3.) Although EE11 targets Java 17/21, the CXF team would like > > > > > to > > require Java 21. I’ve commented on that, but it would be great if > > others > > could also voice their preference for Java 17 over Java 21 as the > > baseline. > > > > > An alternative would be to adopt Java 21 as the baseline for > > > > > TomEE 11: > > [4]. Currently, the baseline on the ee11 branch is set to Java 21 > > (as the > > intermediate CXF fork did require it). > > > > > 4.) Build looks good so far. The tests, which are failing > > > > > right now, > > are all related to the removal of the SecurityManager in Java 21. > > The build > > is here: [5] > > > > > > > > > > On our upstream dependencies: > > > > > > > > > > - Work has started on OpenJPA for JPA 3.2 on a separate > > > > > branch / repo, > > so not out to see in the original repo. I think, that help would be > > welcome > > on their side. > > > > > - CXF has also started working on EE11 (see above) > > > > > - OWB also started for the CDI part. > > > > > - MyFaces is already EE 11 ready (afaik) > > > > > > > > > > What needs to be done: > > > > > > > > > > - Next step on our side would be to start implementing the > > > > > changes for > > the specs (security, concurrency, …) which are implemented in TomEE > > itself. > > > > > - We need to discuss how we want to deal with Jakarta Data > > > > > (new spec); > > would need to be implemented either as a separate project or in > > TomEE > > itself. > > > > > - Look into MicroProfile 7+ upgrades ;-) > > > > > > > > > > More updates will follow as the work progresses. > > > > > Feedback, testing, and comments are very welcome. > > > > > > > > > > Gruß > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/ee11 > > > > > [2] https://github.com/reta/cxf/tree/CXF-8828 > > > > > [3] https://github.com/rzo1/cxf/tree/CXF-8828 > > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-8828 > > > > > [5] https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/tomee11-full/ > > > > > > > > >
