Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [POLL] Would you support the as-is javax JA

[Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I still think that this is asking the wrong question.

Because our product would want to provide compatibility for Java EE 8
applications, we would have to do (a).

Now find someone who intends to build a product that will never provide
that compatibility and ask them what they'll do.  Those are the people
we're targeting with this pruned and streamlined platform definition.

I don't think you would find anyone who would provide JAXB and JAX-WS
but *not* provide binary compatibility with all the other javax APIs
that would be needed by applications that also need JAXB and JAX-WS.


Note also that Activation is a hard dependency of Mail; you can't have
Mail without Activation.  Because of that, my proposal is to move
Activation into Jakarta EE 9 and keep it as a full fledged, jakarta-ized
component spec of Jakarta EE.

I think the issue here is really about JAXB and JAX-WS et. al.


David Blevins wrote on 12/3/19 1:59 AM:
> An informal poll for the implementations.  I think we might be all saying the same thing differently.
> 
> Let's say that Jakarta EE 9 doesn't "include" JAXB, JAX-WS or Activation, whatever "include" means.
> 
> Will you then:
> 
>  a) leave the `javax` versions of JAXB, JAX-WS, Activation in your future Jakarta EE 9 implementation
>  b) put the work into removing `javax` versions of JAXB, JAX-WS, Activation and ship your future Jakarta EE 9 implementation without them
> 
>