Thanks. If I’m understanding correctly I have a suggestion for one way we could proceed starting today using the branches available to us. The idea being to start with a 4.0 for EE11 that only removes the XML binding dependency and ManagedBean annotation, and allows for @Context deprecation work to continue for possible inclusion in 4.0 for EE11 (a stretch goal for sure) or EE12. Thoughts?
Master branch
- Updated to remove the XML binding dependency (as required for EE11 by the Platform).
- Updated to remove @ManagedBean annotation.
- Updated with TCK updates and fixes.
- Make adjustments to Epic and Release Plan to account for content.
- Will initially NOT contain and changes to remove or formally deprecate @Context injection.
I don't think this is a bad plan, but I just want to point out that master is missing a number of commits that are in release-4.0 and release-3.2. Specifically around the refactoring of the POM's and versioning. That doesn't mean we can't update, but it will need to be done. For example, master still has a version of 3.1.0.
I do see removing XML Binding as being somewhat critical. It's been removed from the platform spec which is a real problem for us if we keep a dependency on it. Specifically around signature tests.
I see a few options here:
- We could create a new branch named main to replace master, which would be based on reverting or simply deleting the deprecation commits. In some ways this is not considered good practice, but the branch name would be new so it's kind of a grey area in some ways too :)
- Simply migrate the fixes POM updates to master
- Same as 3, but let's go with the trend of renaming master to main :)
Release-3.2 branch
- Update with all PRs going into Master branch.
- Continue prototype work to deprecate @Context injection and provide alternative implementation
- Move changes into master for release. This might be 4.0, 4.x, or 5.0 for EE11 or EE12, depending on when it is ready.
Release-4.0 branch
- Keep for reference
- Remove when no longer relevant.
Thank you for sharing, Jim.
+1 for Jakarta REST 4.0 in EE11, with @Context deprecated and kept as we planned for 3.2.
4.0 has a capability to overcome potential incompatibilities when moving towards CDI injection, while it can keep compatibility with 3.1 when using the 3.1 legacy injection. It would also allow a path for MP.next to move from @Context.
Thanks,
Jan
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:22 PM Santiago Pericasgeertsen via rest-dev <
rest-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim,
Thanks for the update.
- On 3.2: I have not seen proof that we can do 3.2 with the suggested changes (deprecations) without breaking backward compatibility. I am skeptical.
My concern here is there will be no path forward for projects like MicroProfile if we simply just remove the @Context injection. If we drop
@Context support, say in Jakarta EE 12, there is a very likely chance you can't have a Jakarta EE 12 deployment that works with some MicroProfile specifications and/or implementations. I know for sure there are several API's and implementations that use @Context injection for their REST endpoints.
- On 3.1 for EE11: No objections.
- On 4.0 for JAXB deprecation: Seems OK at first glance.
Just for a personal preference, I like the idea of what we have planned for 3.2, in a 4.0 which removes JAXB. That part is just my opinion though :)
— Santiago
Hi,
In this morning's
EE11 Platform call there was renewed concerns about the possibility that Jakarta Rest may need to remain on 3.1 for EE11. The primary point of concern centered around the fact that XML binding would be moving to optional in EE11. This will cause a problem
for Jakarta Rest since the deprecated dependency with JAXB is not slated for removal prior to JAkarta Rest 4.0. It was discussed that we might be asked to put out Jakarta Rest 4.0 containing only the removal of the JAXB dependency. I'd also assume if our work
with release-3.2 reaches a point where it could be included in EE11 that there would likely be a push to rename 3.2 to 4.0 in order to allow the JAXB dependency removal to be included.
I was not
in a position to advocate a course of action. I felt that the group should be made aware of this discussion.
_______________________________________________
rest-dev mailing list
rest-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://accounts.eclipse.org__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!OKE2-3coiWbO1poF9zfNNnIeHBWQ8QGhrpflT-cPEApEZxWsoYIlXpIg0Pz5ElVotc6exqiXp5S8q5WMQ2972MSCKRgw$
rest-dev mailing list
rest-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org
-- James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
rest-dev mailing list
rest-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org
