Upgrade service framework to support jakarta (JEE 9)

[harshit-kumar-v2]

Description

Please include a summary of the change, motivation and context.

Testing

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Please summarize what did you test and what needs to be tested e.g. deployed and tested helm chart locally.

Checklist:

• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Documentation

Make sure that you have documented corresponding changes in this repository or hypertrace docs repo if required.

[github-actions]

Test Results

32 tests  ±0   32 ✅ ±0   14s ⏱️ +5s
 9 suites ±0    0 💤 ±0 
 9 files   ±0    0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit e577182. ± Comparison against base commit 100e1a7.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.53%. Comparing base (100e1a7) to head (e577182).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #109      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     68.21%   68.53%   +0.32%     
  Complexity      107      107              
============================================
  Files            17       17              
  Lines           623      623              
  Branches         32       32              
============================================
+ Hits            425      427       +2     
+ Misses          179      177       -2     
  Partials         19       19              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	68.53% <ø> (+0.32%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[aaron-steinfeld]

Change looks fine - I wonder if we should change the artifact name/group?

[harshit-kumar-v2]

Change looks fine - I wonder if we should change the artifact name/group?

I think we can go with new name to go a systematic route.
I suppose we will add new artifact to bom and start consuming in our upgraded services one-by-one?
This will also help us do compatibility changes on services with upgrade SF.

If i am missing something can you also briefly describe how we should move the changes.

[aaron-steinfeld]

I think we can go with new name to go a systematic route.
I suppose we will add new artifact to bom and start consuming in our upgraded services one-by-one?

I think we're saying the same thing? New, unique artifact so it doesn't conflict with the existing ones. We don't need to maintain the old lineage, we just want to avoid the transitive upgrade.

[harshit-kumar-v2]

I think we can go with new name to go a systematic route.
I suppose we will add new artifact to bom and start consuming in our upgraded services one-by-one?

I think we're saying the same thing? New, unique artifact so it doesn't conflict with the existing ones. We don't need to maintain the old lineage, we just want to avoid the transitive upgrade.

yeah, just iterating over again to be sure.
i will make this change then.
EDIT: is there any conf we can add or just renaming the modules will allow us to achieve this?