You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@tika.apache.org by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com> on 2023/04/12 08:50:21 UTC
Jakarta-friendly version
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
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by Tim Allison <ta...@apache.org>.
Thank you!
Documented here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-3948
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:30 AM Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <so...@gmail.com> 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
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <so...@gmail.com> 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
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by John Ulric <uj...@gmail.com>.
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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <
> solomax666@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by Tim Allison <ta...@apache.org>.
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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <so...@gmail.com> 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
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by John Ulric <uj...@gmail.com>.
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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <so...@gmail.com>
> 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
>
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by Tim Allison <ta...@apache.org>.
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 <uj...@gmail.com> 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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <so...@gmail.com> 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
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by John Ulric <uj...@gmail.com>.
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 <ta...@apache.org> 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 <so...@gmail.com>
> 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
>
Re: Jakarta-friendly version
Posted by Tim Allison <ta...@apache.org>.
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 <so...@gmail.com> 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