Hello Tim, All, Sorry for the late response AFAIK javax -> jackarta depends on JEE profile
To migrate our application following changes were required: javax.persistence -> jakarta.persistence javax.activation -> jakarta.activation javax.mail -> jakarta.mail javax.servlet -> jakarta.servlet As I can see it benefits are: - no conflicts with latest web app servers Tomcat 10+, Jetty 10+ - *being up-to-date ;) Risks: - This version can be used only by projects who migrate all dependencies There are many different option to perform migration 1) OpenJPA creates jakarta artifact using maven-shade [1] 2) Wicket moves to Jakarta in next major version [2] 3) Jackrabbit uses `eclipse-transformer` plugin [3] I'm not sure which path is correct for Tika, It depends on how (and which parts of JEE) are you using :) [1] https://github.com/apache/openjpa/blob/c3da147fc922dcd56c3a62c951bebac0d870d8cd/openjpa/pom.xml#L100 [2] https://github.com/apache/wicket [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-4892 On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 02:50, John Ulric <[email protected]> wrote: > > Don’t have a quick answer to that, I’m afraid. But I’ll ask a colleague who > is more familiar with the subject. > > Tim Allison <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi. 12. Apr. 2023 um 21:23: >> >> Thank you, are there other jakarta-adjacent or similar upgrades we >> should make in a 3.x branch? >> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 2:56 PM John Ulric <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > 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 -- Best regards, Maxim
