Thank you, John. I'm wondering if we should hold off on this until Tika 3.x? Maybe we start a 3.x branch and cut over to Java 11 while we're at it?
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:17 AM John Ulric <uja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This relates to the change from javax.* package names to jakarta.* package > names. No matter which way you do it, it will probably break things for those > still/already “on the other side” of that change. I guess the only nice way > is to proceed with two artifacts for a certain time, one with the old > dependency chain and one with the new one. > > Reference: > https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/issues/1174 > > > > Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi. 12. Apr. 2023 um 12:31: >> >> Can you recommend a blog post or SO on the benefits/risks of this? >> I'm happy to make the change if it doesn't break stuff for others. >> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:50 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > tika-parsers-standard-package:2.7.0 >> > depends on >> > tika-parser-crypto-module:2.7.0 >> > depends on >> > bcmail-jdk18on:1.72 >> > >> > To be jackarta-friendly bcmail-jdk18on:1.72 should be replaced with >> > bcjmail-jdk18on:1.72 >> > >> > Are there any plans to release jackarta-friendly >> > tika-parsers-standard-package ? >> > >> > Or maybe it is safe to replace bcmail-jdk18on:1.72 with >> > bcjmail-jdk18on:1.72 in our pom? :) >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Maxim
