Would it work running JAXB 2.3.0 on Java 8? I understand this version of
JAXB has been modularized for Java 9.
Java 6 = JAXB Version 2.0
Java 7 = JAXB Version 2.2.3
Java 8 = JAXB Version 2.2.8
Java 9 = JAXB Version 2.3.0
/Sverre
Den ons. 19. sep. 2018 kl. 14:01 skrev Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com
>:
> I suggest to use Glassfish artifacts and use 2.3.0 or later.
> Actually the 2.3.0 version is the best replacement for jdk8 APIs
>
> Enrico
>
> Il mer 19 set 2018, 13:55 Sverre Moe <sverre....@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > This is what we have done for our legacy application running Java 8.
> >
> > By adding the dependencies for JAXB we where able to run our application
> > with Java 9 and 10 without any other changes needed and still keep
> > compatibility with Java 8.
> >
> > We don't have the compile scope, as we deploy with Java Web Start and
> need
> > the JAXB dependencies there in case some client is running Java 9+.
> >
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>javax.xml.bind</groupId>
> > <artifactId>jaxb-api</artifactId>
> > <version>2.2.11</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>com.sun.xml.bind</groupId>
> > <artifactId>jaxb-core</artifactId>
> > <version>2.2.11</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>com.sun.xml.bind</groupId>
> > <artifactId>jaxb-impl</artifactId>
> > <version>2.2.11</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>javax.activation</groupId>
> > <artifactId>activation</artifactId>
> > <version>1.1.1</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > This is the Sun JAXB implementation. There is alternatives from Glassfish
> > and Eclipselink.
> >
> > Den tir. 18. sep. 2018 kl. 21:46 skrev Robert Scholte <
> > rfscho...@apache.org
> > >:
> >
> > > Add them as compile scoped dependencies. The JRE implementation will be
> > > picked up first, so there should be no issues here.
> > > AFAIK this is what the jigsaw team suggests to do. (this is actually
> not
> > > a
> > > buildtool specific issue but a general Java issue)
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 01:21:52 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels
> > > <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And in addition to Jörgs Questions, do we also have a canonical
> > > > representation which replacements are actually preferred in ASL land?
> > > >
> > > > Gruss
> > > > Bernd
> > > > --
> > > > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > Von: Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de>
> > > > Gesendet: Freitag, September 14, 2018 1:16 AM
> > > > An: users@maven.apache.org
> > > > Betreff: Java 11 and java.xml.bin, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > now with Java 11 not containing several jave.ee modules, what's the
> > best
> > > > approach for a library that supports still Java 8? I guess profiles
> > based
> > > > on the current Java version declaring the missing stuff as dependency
> > are
> > > > a bad idea. Should a library developer add the new dependencies
> > > > nevertheless with compile/runtime scope or as provided or optional to
> > > > move
> > > > the responsibility to the library users? What do you recommend?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Jörg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> --
>
>
> -- Enrico Olivelli
>
