Hey all Not sure where else to turn 😊 I'm trying to start testing my apps on Java 9, I believe Java 9 kicks back the javax.annotation dependency that CDI declares due to a package collision with the built in JDK's javax.annotation package <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summar...;. The errors I get are due to missing javax/annotation/Priority. I'm wondering if anyone else has tried this, and if there's a clean work around? John ------------------------------ NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you. _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/ licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.

Hey all Not sure where else to turn 😊 I'm trying to start testing my apps on Java 9, I believe Java 9 kicks back the javax.annotation dependency that CDI declares due to a package collision with the built in JDK's javax.annotation package <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summar...;. The errors I get are due to missing javax/annotation/Priority.  I'm wondering if anyone else has tried this, and if there's a clean work around? John ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you. _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.

I encountered the same type of collision with java.transaction.InvalidTransactionException which is in the JDK and in JTA. I remember sending this problem to jigsaw ML [1], but obviously they didn't have time to do something or expect having Java EE spec do the required stuff :-(. Now that JDK9 is out, if we want EE4J 9 (or whatever it's version will be) to support jigsaw, we'll probably have to change packages names :-(.

Antoine [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-July/008779.html On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: For the record, the CDI API itself does not define a dependency on javax.annotation at all. In fact, I'm wondering why @Priority is not part of JDK?? I suppose the reasons are similar to why javax.annotation.Priority only has @Target({TYPE,PARAMETER}) (even if we tried to push other element types :-(. M Dne 21.10.2017 v 16:22 John Ament napsal(a): > Hey all > > > Not sure where else to turn 😊 > > > I'm trying to start testing my apps on Java 9, I believe Java 9 kicks > back the javax.annotation dependency that CDI declares due to a package > collision with the built in JDK's javax.annotation package > <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summar...;. > The errors I get are due to missing javax/annotation/Priority.  I'm > wondering if anyone else has tried this, and if there's a clean work around? > > > John > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain > confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be > treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please > notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and > destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information. > -- Martin Kouba Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.

I was not talking about CDI specifically: the spec doesn't have package collision with JDK 9. I'm talking about the EE4J platform since there are collision with javax.annotation and probably a few other collision between jdk9 module and packages in EE4J specs. On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:20 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Dne 23.10.2017 v 10:17 Antoine Sabot-Durand napsal(a): > > I encountered the same type of collision with > > java.transaction.InvalidTransactionException which is in the JDK and in > > JTA. I remember sending this problem to jigsaw ML [1], but obviously > > they didn't have time to do something or expect having Java EE spec do > > the required stuff :-(. > > Now that JDK9 is out, if we want EE4J 9 (or whatever it's version will > > be) to support jigsaw, we'll probably have to change packages names :-(. > > What packages do you have in mind? We don't "own" javax.annotation and > we cannot introduce our own priority annotation... > > > > > > > Antoine > > > > [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016- > July/008779.html > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com > > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > For the record, the CDI API itself does not define a dependency on > > javax.annotation at all. > > > > In fact, I'm wondering why @Priority is not part of JDK?? I suppose > the > > reasons are similar to why javax.annotation.Priority only has > > @Target({TYPE,PARAMETER}) (even if we tried to push other element > > types :-(. > > > > M > > > > Dne 21.10.2017 v 16:22 John Ament napsal(a): > > > Hey all > > > > > > > > > Not sure where else to turn 😊 > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to start testing my apps on Java 9, I believe Java 9 > kicks > > > back the javax.annotation dependency that CDI declares due to a > > package > > > collision with the built in JDK's javax.annotation package > > > > > <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/javax/ > annotation/package-summary.html>. > > > The errors I get are due to missing javax/annotation/Priority. > I'm > > > wondering if anyone else has tried this, and if there's a clean > > work around? > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > > > NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain > > > confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which > > should be > > > treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, > please > > > notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this > > message, and > > > destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > cdi-dev mailing list > > > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider > > licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 > > (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other > > ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and > > other intellectual property rights inherent in such information. > > > > > > > -- > > Martin Kouba > > Senior Software Engineer > > Red Hat, Czech Republic > > _______________________________________________ > > cdi-dev mailing list > > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses > > the code under the Apache License, Version 2 > > (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other > > ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and > > other intellectual property rights inherent in such information. > > > > -- > Martin Kouba > Senior Software Engineer > Red Hat, Czech Republic > _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/ licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.

Am 23.10.2017 um 17:10 schrieb Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt;: >> Now that JDK9 is out, if we want EE4J 9 (or whatever it's version will >> be) to support jigsaw, we'll probably have to change packages names :-(. > > What packages do you have in mind? We don't "own" javax.annotation and > we cannot introduce our own priority annotation... Indeed we (CDI) do not own common-annotations. That was the reason why the JSR-250 working group release a MR for it which did contain the changes we needed in CDI. So from our side (EE) all was fine imo. It's just that the SE team didn't update the JDK to this official MR it seems. LieGrue, strub On Monday, 23 October 2017, 10:31:22 GMT+2, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Dne 23.10.2017 v 10:17 Antoine Sabot-Durand napsal(a): > I encountered the same type of collision with > java.transaction.InvalidTransactionException which is in the JDK and in > JTA. I remember sending this problem to jigsaw ML [1], but obviously > they didn't have time to do something or expect having Java EE spec do > the required stuff :-(. > Now that JDK9 is out, if we want EE4J 9 (or whatever it's version will > be) to support jigsaw, we'll probably have to change packages names :-(. What packages do you have in mind? We don't "own" javax.annotation and we cannot introduce our own priority annotation... > > > Antoine > > [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-July/008779.html > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: > > For the record, the CDI API itself does not define a dependency on > javax.annotation at all. > > In fact, I'm wondering why @Priority is not part of JDK?? I suppose the > reasons are similar to why javax.annotation.Priority only has > @Target({TYPE,PARAMETER}) (even if we tried to push other element > types :-(. > > M > > Dne 21.10.2017 v 16:22 John Ament napsal(a): > > Hey all > > > > > > Not sure where else to turn 😊 > > > > > > I'm trying to start testing my apps on Java 9, I believe Java 9 kicks > > back the javax.annotation dependency that CDI declares due to a > package > > collision with the built in JDK's javax.annotation package > > > <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summar...;. > > The errors I get are due to missing javax/annotation/Priority. I'm > > wondering if anyone else has tried this, and if there's a clean > work around? > > > > > > John > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain > > confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which > should be > > treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please > > notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this > message, and > > destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cdi-dev mailing list > > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider > licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 > (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other > ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and > other intellectual property rights inherent in such information. > > > > -- > Martin Kouba > Senior Software Engineer > Red Hat, Czech Republic > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses > the code under the Apache License, Version 2 > (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other > ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and > other intellectual property rights inherent in such information. > -- Martin Kouba Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.