On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 09:35, Christian Ortlepp wrote: > > Thank you for the information and sorry for the late reply, I had to > discuss this with some of my colleagues first. Currently we are still > working on migrating some other libraries to jakarta that have a higher > priority for our project, but it is possible that we will come back to > this at a later date. In that case I will reach out to you again then.
Just curious to know your requirements. Are you primarily interested in Jakarta dependencies in the Pulsar Java client or do you have requirements for the broker / server side libraries of Pulsar. What is your primary motivation? Explaining that could help take your explicit requirements into consideration. Many others might have similar requirements. > > But just to get an idea of how big of an undertaking this would be: I've > taken a look into your WIP changes and they seem like quite a lot. On a > spectrum from "just started" to "almost done", how far along are your > changes (if you can make such an estimation)? There are a lot of changes due to the major changes in Jetty 12 compared to Jetty 9. In the WIP changes, there are missing changes for Web socket support which is more work to migrate. The amount of changes aren't the main challenge. As described in https://lists.apache.org/thread/mkxw56bt8jdf5b1zq1gdwvy50xgrdj30 , the blocker currently is that in the current setup, Jetty 9 would have to be upgraded to Jetty 12 also in BookKeeper libraries. Since BookKeeper is currently at Java 8 level, that would first have to be bumped to Java 17 to support Jetty 12. The current target schedule is Pulsar 4.1 which is due in mid January. -Lari
