Hey Romain,
Spring integration indeed is not a big deal (by and large). The JAXB/SOAP is.
To give you some background / ideas,
the JAXB got moved into the dedicated module as of JDK 9 and stays like that in
JDK 10. So the usual approach to
solve this dependency issue is (among others) to add modules to compiler and
runtime. However, with JDK 11, the JAXB
module (with a dozen of others) will be removed completely. The only available
option would be to switch the dependencies
to JAXB 2.3.0 (or 2.3.1 if released, and other modules from github.com/javaee).
This is a risky part as CXF is used in a
variety of context ... What we can do also is to have a spike and estimate the
impact on the CXF with all these changes
incorporated, than decided for 3.3.x or keeping 3.2.x. Thoughts?
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
RMB> Hey guys
RMB> Cant an option be to use subprojects? Spring integrations sound like good
candidate for that and now cxf is modular it should be easier.
RMB> Le dim. 13 mai 2018 18:27, Andriy Redko <[email protected]> a écrit :
RMB> Hi Dennis,
RMB> In general, I think it would be great to accelerate the work in this
direction and having dedicated
RMB> release branch sounds like a good idea. Moreover, JDK 11 will bring even
more challenges for us
RMB> regarding the JAXB (and tons of related specs). I have been doing some
work related to that and from
RMB> dependencies perspective, it is large but envitable change (since JDK 11
cuts more stuff). Same goes
RMB> for Spring Boot 2.0, the integration would need to be changed. The
concern I have though is that we
RMB> would have to support 3.1.x, 3.2.x and 3.3.x (if it is a go) for quite a
while. 3.1.x is still being
RMB> used and we are getting requests from time to time to backport some
changes from 3.2.x. 3.2.x has to
RMB> stay for older Spring Boot integrations (1.5.x which is still majority)
and Java 8 (who knows for how
RMB> long). I would be curious to hear what Dan and other guys think, since
they have seen similar large
RMB> changes over the years. But I cerntainly agree we have to think about
that, dedicated branch gives
RMB> us more freedom to stabilize things and experiment while 3.2.x serves as
a stable backup.
RMB> Thanks for bringing this up!
RMB> Best Regards,
RMB> Andriy Redko
DK>> Hi,
DK>> i'd like to update CXF to Spring/ Spring Security 5 and Spring Boot 2.
There were also discussions about JAXB 2.3.0
DK>> and we might have additional changes for Java 9/10. In my view that would
be a good start for CXF 3.3.x or what do you think?
DK>> Cheers
DK>> Dennis
