On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:11 PM Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote:
> Am 2019-10-28 um 14:59 schrieb Mark Thomas: > > On October 28, 2019 12:37:14 PM UTC, Johan Compagner < > jcompag...@servoy.com> wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 13:15, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> A frequent topic of discussion at ApacheCon EU was Jakarta EE 9. For > >> those > >>> of you who aren't familiar with Jakarta EE the key points are: > >>> > >>> - Oracle have donated Java EE to Eclipse > >>> - Eclipse have released Jakarta EE 8 which is essentially identical > >> to > >>> Java EE 8 > >>> - Oracle have refused to allow changes to the APIs in the javax > >> namespace > >>> - The Jakarta EE community seem to be reaching consensus on releasing > >>> Jakarta EE 9 which will rename all the Java packages from javax.* to > >>> jakarta.* > >>> > >>> > >> > >> what does this rename really mean? > >> > >> import javax.servlet.http.HttpSession; > >> import javax.websocket.Session; > >> > >> those are renamed? > >> If that is yes that would mean pretty much everything will break? > > > > Correct. Hence the question on options for how we consider maintaining > compatibility. > > If this is going to be disruptive and we cannot maintain compat, why not > go the extra step and explicitly move Tomcat code to org.apache.tomcat.* > for Tomcat 10? Git renames will work flawlessly for backports. > > I assume that most users never knew or don't understand where "catalina" > comes from. > There's no reason to break APIs just for the sake of it (and the current package structure looks relatively reasonable to me, catalina is the actual container, coyote is the connector, jasper is Jasper). This is really like "oh, this is going to be a pain for users, so while we're at it let's destroy the rest". At this point I think the differences with the current 9 should be as limited as possible to avoid user problems. If more significant items get included such as, let's say, APR removal or some similar feature that wouldn't be backported to 9, then it should be limited to these items and it justifies the branch being called "10" rather than "9.something". Rémy
