By the way, just a gently reminder: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309>
We received several ping about that, the Jira is there (and already targeted to 5.17.0), and it’s clearly not blocker. So, I don’t see why to block/veto this change. My $0.01. Regards JB > Le 19 mai 2021 à 12:17, Christopher Shannon <[email protected]> > a écrit : > > Moving back to dev list again... > > Yes we had talked about it before in terms of the client side but it wasn't > clear in this thread as your original answer on this thread was "ActiveMQ > 5.17.0 will support JMS 2.0." with no caveats or clarification to mention > that it would not be full support. Seeing as how this was on the users list > that would be a bit misleading to users. > > Also, I still don't really know what the point of "client side" support is > because you can use the JMS 2.0 jar with ActiveMQ as long as you don't call > the new methods. Looking at that code you linked it seems like the new > methods (like shared subscription creation) just delegate to the old JMS > 1.1 methods such as in > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2/TomEESession.java > > That behavior seems odd and confusing to me because if a user is calling > methods to make a shared subscription or shared durable but it wasn't > supported I think it would be much preferable to just throw an error or > something vs delegating back. It seems way worse to allow users to call > those methods with no errors as a user of the library would (no surprise) > be expecting it to provide a shared subscription and it doesn't with no > indidication. If someone is writing an application and their business logic > is asking for a shared subscription but we don't provide it then that is > very different semantics and would most likely break the application so I > think that's a pretty bad idea overall so I really don't see why we would > want to do that. > > Other people can chime in but I would be very likely to veto a code change > for client support that simply delegates 2.0 methods to 1.1 methods. > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:09 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> By the way, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s what we discussed last year: >> start with the client the side, and then move forward for server side. >> >> What we planned in 5.16.x will be in 5.17.x. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 19 mai 2021 à 06:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The first step is at least the client support, similar to what have been >> done on OpenEJB: >>> >>> >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 >> < >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 >>> >>> >>> This allow TomEE to work with ActiveMQ using JMS 2.0. >>> >>> So, the proposal is to have a two steps work: >>> >>> 1. Support JMS 2.0 client side, it will help in tomee, karaf, etc >>> 2. Step by step implement server side support >>> >>> IMHO, 1 would be good step forward already and it works fine for a while >> in tomee. It will already allow us to update the spec. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 21:09, Christopher Shannon < >> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>> What exactly are you proposing? Full support would be a tremendous >> amount >>>> of work. I started a thread on this already a while back here: >>>> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-JMS-2-0-support-in-5-x-going-forward-td4757779.html >>>> >>>> My issue here is the lack of clarity. I have no clue what you are >> proposing >>>> but it needs to be defined so we don't mislead users by claiming there >> is >>>> JMS 2.0 support when there isn't. I listed out possible paths forward in >>>> that other thread. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It’s something that we already discussed and I moved forward on the PR. >>>>> >>>>> I propose to move forward on JMS 2.0 support. >>>>> >>>>> If the community agree, and tests are fine, I don’t see any issue to >>>>> support it in 5.17.0 as best effort. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I will propose the PR, and see when to include it. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:36, Christopher Shannon < >>>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Since when is JMS 2.0 supposed to be supported by 5.17.0? >>>>>> >>>>>> None of the features are implemented on the server side for the new >> API >>>>>> calls. This was brought up in a dev discussion that there won't be JMS >>>>> 2.0 >>>>>> support on the server side in this release. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >> [email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> He’s not PMC but committer, so he can help anyway ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:23, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think Romain is still the PMC for TomEE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:19 >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Which activeMQ (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 or >>>>> 3.0 >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’m sure I can ask help from Romain about TomEE releases ;) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:09, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Jean-Baptiste, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are using ActiveMQ in TomEE context. >>>>>>>>> So I am just curious about when this version could be included in >>>>> TomEE >>>>>>> releases. I will push for that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> >>>>>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:05 >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Which activeMQ (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 >> or >>>>>>> 3.0 ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The purpose of the RC is to cut an early release (kind of "cut >>>>>>> SNAPSHOT") to allow users to test it before the first "official" >>>>> release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I can propose to you is: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. I need couple of weeks to open the PRs and merge it (I’m on >> JDK11 >>>>>>> now, identifying/fixing/disabling some tests) 2. When done, I will >>>>> inform >>>>>>> you on the mailing list allowing you to test using the SNAPSHOTs >>>>>>> (5.17.0-SNAPSHOT) 3. If I don’t see any blocker on SNAPSHOT, then I >> will >>>>>>> move forward on 5.17.0 release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does it sound good to you ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:59, Simon Billingsley >>>>>>> <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the details information. >>>>>>>>>> I am interested in the Log4J 2 upgrade. >>>>>>>>>> How long does the release take after the RC process normally? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Simon. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 18 May 2021, at 15:53, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto: >>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi François, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ 5.17.0 will support JMS 2.0. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Basically, what I’m planning for ActiveMQ 5.17.0: >>>>>>>>>> - JDK11 build >>>>>>>>>> - Spring 5 >>>>>>>>>> - Log4j2 >>>>>>>>>> - JMS 2.0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> About date target, I’m working on JDK11 build now and the other >> PRs >>>>>>> will follow. I would like to submit a first 5.17 RC end of June. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:48, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected]> <mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected]>><mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected]> <mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected]>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question to be answered is in the Subject. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
