Sounds like a feasible approach. Agreed that right now using CXF in > Java 8 is a bit of a pain if you want to leverage the JPMS. Depending on the provided modules isn't a good idea, highly inconsistent and makes things harder for other EE techs (e.g. CDI).
John On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:37 PM David Karlsen <[email protected]> wrote: > I've started a few branches at work for applications (also one that is > using cxf) - the way to fix it is to add the spec apis and jaxb as > dependencies and it worked out fine. > > Maybe a spring5/boot2.x compatible release could be done for 3.3, then a > 3.4 for java > 8? > > My .02$ > > Den søn. 13. mai 2018 kl. 19:56 skrev Andriy Redko <[email protected]>: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen >
