Thank you, are there other jakarta-adjacent or similar upgrades we should make in a 3.x branch?
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 2:56 PM John Ulric <uja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't have a complete overview, of course, but many projects seem to make > that package change along with a major version. And yes, when switching to > Jakarta packages, it would probably be okay to also switch to mandatory Java > 11. (2.x runs on Java 11 optionally, AFAIK?) –John > > Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi. 12. Apr. 2023 um 20:47: >> >> 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
