apache
upgrade jdk and java ee
This addresses https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OLINGO-1600 I think the version should get bumped to 5.0.0 (as moving to Jakarta / SB 3.0 requires adoption for a consuming project). But to be future-proof I think moving olingo to the jakarta (instead of javax) servlet api is necessary.
Hello,
Thanks for your work!
Currently, I am in the process of upgrading my project from Spring Boot 2.7 to 3. Unfortunately, Olingo uses the Javax package instead of Jakarta, which is causing compatibility issues with Spring Boot 3.
I see that this pull request includes the Olingo upgrade. Could you please let me know if the team can provide the Olingo with Jakarta? Additionally, I would like to inquire about the expected timeline for this upgrade to be available. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Thank you very much for the effort assisting supporting Jakarta. We also waiting for this PR. Thanks again!
Hello, great to know there is a PR for Jakarta upgrade in Olingo. Something I am eagerly waiting to apply to my project. If there is any information on when the official release is scheduled please do post it on a public channel.
Hi there, updated my project to the new major version of quarkus, now I am facing same compatibility issues. Looking forward to have Jakarta for Olingo!
Hi @eduardoraupp , I am planning to perform a review of your PR and might propose some changes for Discussion. I will fork from your repo and open a PR to your repo with some review changes. FYI @mibo @sourabhsparkala .
If there are any objections from anybody to move this project to semantic versioning and make this change with version 5.0.0, let me know your concerns in this thread.
Can this be merged asap? This will be a big blocker for us to upgrade to the latest version of Java and spring boot.
Hi All, sorry, I missed the discussion in this PR (for me the mailing list is still my primary channel (see also use of mailing lists 😉)).
I plan to have a release of Olingo with this PR in the next months and I also propose to switch to semantic versioning, as you can read in my mail to the developer mailing list.
However, the planned timeline may be a bit longer than some hoped for but, I want to do the 4.10.0 release before the 5.0.0 and I need time to review this PR. I hope that I can do it all in October, latest in November.
And most important, Thanks for the contribution @eduardoraupp 👍
Hi @eduardoraupp , I am planning to perform a review of your PR and might propose some changes for Discussion. I will fork from your repo and open a PR to your repo with some review changes. FYI @mibo @sourabhsparkala .
If there are any objections from anybody to move this project to semantic versioning and make this change with version 5.0.0, let me know your concerns in this thread.
Hello sir @aamotharald ! I was reading the jira ticket but not here. Sorry. The jira ticket also has the diff. I attached it there. Any change in order to improve the PR.. lets do it!!! If you either put comments or do it by yourself, I am completely in favor. Thank you!!!!
mibo
Hello sir! if you need any change, let me know and I fix it. The diff is attached to the jira ticket. Regards,
@mibo @aamotharald I pulled the changes from the master and fixed the conflicts (they were easy and related to the parent pom.xml).. if you want to rerun de pipeline, I'd appreciate. Regards,
@mibo Thanks for the update and all the work you and your fellow maintainers put into this project!
Is there anything we in the community can do to help moving this issue forward?
@rspilker Thanks for asking, but currently there is nothing that the community can do.
The 4.10.0 (see #145) release is ongoing and hopefully be done by the end of October. Afterward I will invest time here, most likely merging the PR and preparing the 'upgrade' release with the major version bump to 5.0.0 🙂
Btw. as the projects mailing list is still the leading decision-making channel for Apache projects, I try to sync the versioning schema discussion here with the related mail thread.
Short update, for me it is a bit easier with a branch/PR in this repo. Hence I created #151 to test and proceed with the upgrade.