Thank you! Documented here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-3948
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:30 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Tim, All, > > Sorry for the late response > AFAIK javax -> jackarta depends on JEE profile > > To migrate our application following changes were required: > javax.persistence -> jakarta.persistence > javax.activation -> jakarta.activation > javax.mail -> jakarta.mail > javax.servlet -> jakarta.servlet > > As I can see it benefits are: > - no conflicts with latest web app servers Tomcat 10+, Jetty 10+ > - *being up-to-date ;) > > Risks: > - This version can be used only by projects who migrate all dependencies > > > There are many different option to perform migration > > 1) OpenJPA creates jakarta artifact using maven-shade [1] > 2) Wicket moves to Jakarta in next major version [2] > 3) Jackrabbit uses `eclipse-transformer` plugin [3] > > I'm not sure which path is correct for Tika, It depends on how (and > which parts of JEE) are you using :) > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/openjpa/blob/c3da147fc922dcd56c3a62c951bebac0d870d8cd/openjpa/pom.xml#L100 > [2] https://github.com/apache/wicket > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-4892 > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 02:50, John Ulric <uja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Don’t have a quick answer to that, I’m afraid. But I’ll ask a colleague who > > is more familiar with the subject. > > > > Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi. 12. Apr. 2023 um 21:23: > >> > >> 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 > > > > -- > Best regards, > Maxim
