I don't have a complete overview, of course, but many projects seem to make that package change along with a major version. And yes, when switching to Jakarta packages, it would probably be okay to also switch to mandatory Java 11. (2.x runs on Java 11 optionally, AFAIK?) –John
Tim Allison <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi. 12. Apr. 2023 um 20:47: > Thank you, John. I'm wondering if we should hold off on this until > Tika 3.x? Maybe we start a 3.x branch and cut over to Java 11 while > we're at it? > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:17 AM John Ulric <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This relates to the change from javax.* package names to jakarta.* > package names. No matter which way you do it, it will probably break things > for those still/already “on the other side” of that change. I guess the > only nice way is to proceed with two artifacts for a certain time, one with > the old dependency chain and one with the new one. > > > > Reference: > > https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/issues/1174 > > > > > > > > Tim Allison <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi. 12. Apr. 2023 um 12:31: > >> > >> Can you recommend a blog post or SO on the benefits/risks of this? > >> I'm happy to make the change if it doesn't break stuff for others. > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:50 AM Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > tika-parsers-standard-package:2.7.0 > >> > depends on > >> > tika-parser-crypto-module:2.7.0 > >> > depends on > >> > bcmail-jdk18on:1.72 > >> > > >> > To be jackarta-friendly bcmail-jdk18on:1.72 should be replaced with > >> > bcjmail-jdk18on:1.72 > >> > > >> > Are there any plans to release jackarta-friendly > tika-parsers-standard-package ? > >> > > >> > Or maybe it is safe to replace bcmail-jdk18on:1.72 with > >> > bcjmail-jdk18on:1.72 in our pom? :) > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > Maxim >
