Side note: dropping javax.annotation and its declaration in jre-9 i managed
to move forward and no issue since jre part of karaf uses the jre
automatically and other parts use the bundle i deployed.
So likely some work to do but kind of confirm it is a good option.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le mar. 28 janv. 2020 à 07:05, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr.grzy...@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Thanks Robert
>
> At least I was able to see `Multi-Release` jars/bundles in action. In Pax
> Logging 2.0.x I did this to make Log4j2 work under JDK8 and JDK9+
> <
> https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/blob/logging-2.0.2/pax-logging-api/osgi.bnd#L103
> >
> .
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> pon., 27 sty 2020 o 13:47 Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> napisał(a):
>
> > On 27/01/2020 09:26, Grzegorz Grzybek wrote:
> > > Thanks for explanation. I told you - I've never used anything above
> > JDK8...
> > >
> > > And I know this Jigsaw thing brings more trouble than benefits...
> Anyone
> > of
> > > you using JDK9+ modules at all? Or only making workarounds for them? :)
> >
> > Well, there is a project tracking JPMS modules in Central here:
> > https://github.com/sormuras/modules :)
> >
> > OpenDaylight current development release does require JDK11 (for
> > VarHandles mostly) and we do have a number of automatic modules and a
> > few explicit modules.
> >
> > This is low-priority work as we are waiting for OSGi R7-compliant Karaf
> > (due to
> > https://blog.osgi.org/2018/02/osgi-r7-highlights-java-9-support.html and
> > SCR annotation improvements). Once we have that, I expect the pace of
> > JPMS adoption to pick up. With
> > https://blog.osgi.org/2019/09/osgi-connect-revisited.html it may
> > actually be useful in the future :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Robert
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to