Hi,
Just wanted sharing my developer experience today, that is so well
summarized below...
So, after
https://www.mail-archive.com/server-user@james.apache.org/msg16880.html
discussion on the mailing list it seems that there is a consensus to
upgrade to Java 21 (yey!).
I decided to start POCing around this task:
https://github.com/apache/james-project/pull/1833
Along the way I found that some dependencies needed to be updated, like
JPA in order to support new class formats. CF
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2918. Which I did...
To finally found out that our way outdated spring implementation uses
spring-orm to provide OpenJPA bindings...
And the sentence "this would break Spring" came again. And once again
this "legacy" makes making progress needlessly painful.
Regards,
Benoit TELLIER
On 24/11/2023 17:30, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
Hi,
I had a hack session with Benoit today and the sentence "this would break
Spring" came many times along the day.
As I'm less active on James than I used to be, I must admin I have no idea how
popular the Spring version of James is nowadays.
However, what strikes me when I hack on James is how the size of the project
and its legacy makes it so slow to make progress.
We did some deprecation and removal in the past but we have been conservative
about that.
I would like to argue that being conservative to preserve existing users may
actually prevents from attracting new ones. Moreover, it probably also prevents
new developers to involve as they are quickly overwhelmed.
So, what would you think about removing more aggressively features and modules,
starting with the Spring support?
Cheers,
-- Matthieu Baechler
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
