bumping version of jaxb dependency

[piotr-gawron]

Hi,

I would like to update jaxb dependency to 4.0 (it was released over 3 years ago).

I already started working on it and I can prepare the PR. However, there are few things that should be addressed before I finish:

1. First of all, do you want it? jaxb 4 dropped the support of Java 8, so the lib will be available from Java 11 only (support for java 8 already stopped unless you have paid version)
2. Do you really need ant and maven building tools? maintaining both could become tricky. If the only reason to have both is legacy tasks in ant, I can try to translate them into maven (just let me know which tasks are required and what kind of output do you want to have).
3. I think that in general having *.jar dependencies in the repo is not the best idea (org.sbgn/lib):
   • the repository is heavy
   • maintaining dependency tree becomes complicated when you need to add all transient dependencies
   • What I can suggest here is to modify pom.xml in a way that it would copy all the libraries to the proper ant lib folder: org.sbgn/lib when running mvn clean install (or just to copy the libs by: mvn dependency:copy-dependencies -DoutputDirectory=org.sbgn/lib). However, this would make ant build depend on the maven build. And again the question arise: do you need both building tools here?
4. XJC in jaxb 4 treats all html docs inside xsd as xml nodes and generated javadoc is cluttered with xml tags (the same happens in generated html docs). To clean it up I would need to modify <xsd:documentation> tags in *.xsd files and put it inside <![CDATA[ ]]> tag so it's not treated as html. Maybe there is another solution but I could not it find yet.
5. How do you version libraries? Since this is backward incompatible change it should be something like 1.0.0. However, I'm not sure if you stick to semver.

Please let me know what you think. If you are not interested then I will keep it simple in my fork and will start using the forked version.

[hasanbalci]

@tczauderna Do you have opinions on this issue?

[tczauderna]

@tczauderna Do you have opinions on this issue?

Yes, I do. Well, actually I have a question first. Can we split this issue into several issues?
This makes it easier to discuss, I think.

[hasanbalci]

I think it’s okay to split the issue; it will facilitate the discussion, as you pointed out.