>
> 2. Officially drop support for Java 8 in the Starter (not necessarily
> the bundles) and incorporate Parsson
>
I wouldn't have a problem with bumping the minimum java version for the
starter to the minimum LTS OpenJDK version that is still receiving active
support (currently version 11). It
On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 16:54 +0200, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> I added Parsson to the contentloader 2.6.0 PR
>
> https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-starter/pull/105
>
> Seems to work fine locally. I will split this to a different PR, just
> wanted to push it out there for review.
>
I added Parsson to the contentloader 2.6.0 PR
https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-starter/pull/105
Seems to work fine locally. I will split this to a different PR, just
wanted to push it out there for review.
Thanks,
Robert
On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 16:24 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler
Thanks Konrad, yes I think it was Eclipse Parsson which I used
Regards
Carsten
On 19.04.2023 16:07, Konrad Windszus wrote:
To me it seems that Johnson isn’t really well maintained any longer (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JOHNZON-389 and
At some point in the future we hopefully have https://openjdk.org/jeps/198
integrated in the JDK (but this is not even planned yet for JDK21)
> On 19. Apr 2023, at 16:07, Konrad Windszus wrote:
>
> To me it seems that Johnson isn’t really well maintained any longer (see
>
To me it seems that Johnson isn’t really well maintained any longer (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JOHNZON-389 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JOHNZON-388) and isn’t adopting new spec
versions.
So we should definitely consider moving to
If we can go without maintaining our own wrapper, thats probably the
better option.
I think to remember that I ran into issues when using the glassfish
implementation, but I can't really remember what it was. I ended up with
using some Eclipse implementation which then worked fine.
I know,
On Fri, 2022-12-09 at 09:49 +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
(snip)
> Which then opens the question which bundle we use at runtime for
> jakarta.json? OOTB the johnzon implementation is too heavy as it has
> too
> many dependencies. So we could do the same as for the javax version
> and
>
Am 29.11.2022 um 16:16 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> ...
Overall sounds good to me. The only problematic area that I see is the
cpconverter, as that ends up embedded in various tools. Since it's a
one-off, I hope it will not be problematic.
Yes, that was my hope, too. I finished updating the
Hi Carsten,
On Tue, 2022-11-29 at 09:22 +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you might know, starting with JEE 9 the package names changed from
> javax.* to jakarta.* which means that we will benefit from updates to
> those APIs only if we make the move.
>
> This thread is *not* about
10 matches
Mail list logo
