If they cause an issue, it's trivial to exclude those dependencies in
Maven, Gradle, or really any other build system. I suppose we can find
out from users. :)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:32 PM Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Will including `com.sun.activation:jakarta.activation` and
> `com.sun.mail:smtp` be a problem on application servers
>  that already include implementations of them? My
> knowledge of the J2EE application servers is incomplete
> for the modern (Java 11+) versions.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:05 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As with the old Java EE dependencies on the APIs, the same pattern
> > still applies to Jakarta EE via the "provided" scope (or "compileOnly"
> > configuration when using Gradle).
> >
> > For the second point, I'd lean toward including the dependencies in
> > those cases. You could make them "runtime" scope to avoid using any
> > classes from it at compile time, though.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:44 AM Piotr P. Karwasz
> > <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I just pushed the `log4j-jakarta-smtp` to `release-2.x`. Thanks to many
> > > comments and suggestions in the PR it works as expected, but I have some
> > > doubts on the Maven dependency pattern to apply to the artifact.
> > >
> > > In practice the artifact:
> > >
> > > 1. Directly references classes from
> > > `jakarta.activation:jakarta.activation-api` and
> > > `jakarta.mail:jakarta.mail-api`, but since all known implementations of
> > > those APIs shade those artifacts instead of depending on them, I put
> > those
> > > dependencies as optional compile dependencies. Should they be 'provided'
> > > dependencies?
> > > 2. There is in practice a single implementation of the two APIs above, so
> > > to help users of standalone and light servlet container applications I
> > > added `com.sun.activation:jakarta.activation` and `com.sun.mail:smtp` (a
> > > lighter version of `com.sun.mail:jakarta.mail` with just the SMTP
> > provider)
> > > as non-optional runtime dependencies. Should they be optional
> > dependencies?
> > >
> > > Piotr
> >

Reply via email to