Speaking just for myself, I need to say that I do have a problem with *removing* JAXB. I have to maintain a software that on one hand shall use latest features, but on the other hand MUST stick with JAXB for backwards compatibility. It is OK for me that JAXB would become *optional* so I can simply drop it into the mix on my own. But *removing* instead of *optional* is a no-go for me and completely WAY off Java's long-term backwards compatibility benefit. Having said that, it is not our charter to necessarily do exactly what the platform people dream of just because they would like so, in particular not *forcefully remove* things just because they want to spare maintenance costs for their paid products or whatever benefit they like to have from *removing* it. Due to that I am -1 for *forcefully removing* JAXB, but I am +1 for having it *optional* in the sense of "application vendors can put it on the classpath if needed". As a side effect, there is not justification for a 4.0.
-Markus