It's just a package rename for Jakarta, it should be pretty easy to do a dual release. We'd likely need to set up something with Maven or a script to rewrite the packages and generate another release based on Jakarta messaging.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 8:25 AM Benjamin Graf <benjamin.g...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi, > > just a little look in the future. What about JMS 3.0 API. I just read that > Spring Boot has dropped support for ActiveMQ Classic broker because of > missing JMS 3.0 feature. This might affect many users by the end of this > year. > > Regards, > Benjamin > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Januar 2022 um 21:53 Uhr > Von: "Matt Pavlovich" <mattr...@gmail.com> > An: dev@activemq.apache.org > Betreff: Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.4 and 5.17.0 releases > No prob, thanks! > > > On Jan 25, 2022, at 1:22 PM, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Also, sorry about the delay on the review. I know you tagged me on it a > > couple months ago (I got the email for it). I meant to take a look > earlier > > but I got distracted with stuff at work and then the holidays last month > so > > forgot about it until JB mentioned doing the release coming up. At least > > it's better to review it now before the vote gets called :) > > > > Anyways, even with the delay I still want to make sure it's properly > > reviewed as it's the foundation of the JMS 2.0 changes. It would be good > to > > make sure it's compliant and makes sense before we merge it and release > it. > > > > I tagged Tim and Robbie on the PR to take a look and get any feedback. > > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 1:54 PM Christopher Shannon < > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I was mostly referring to trying to add in any new commits (not that > >> existing PR) that had big changes (like you said shared subscriptions, > >> etc). Small stuff should be ok and we already had discussed using > >> Unsupported exceptions for most things as the way to go for the first > pass. > >> That existing PR looked ok to me when I first took a look. I would > probably > >> want someone like Tim or Robbie to take a look as they have a lot more > >> experience with the JMS 2.0 stuff from having to make QPID compliant. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:16 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Christain- > >>> > >>> The first impl PR has been out there for almost 2 months now. Push back > >>> on that PR would be frustrating ;-) > >>> > >>> Please give this a look over: > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/729 > >>> > >>> The next round should be out this week so they are available for review > >>> for 3 - 7 days (or more) before the release. Overall the general > >>> implementation tasks are pretty straight forward— its just not a ton of > >>> code. Big things like shared subscription probably not in for 5.17.0.. > >>> smaller things like getting body as a class, delivery delay, and the > >>> CLIENT_ACK callback handling aren’t too crazy. > >>> > >>> I agree from an announcement perspective we work on the language.. JMS > >>> 2.0 support is in-progress and X and Y is what is supported as of > release > >>> Z. > >>> > >>> I’ve got a webpage tracking details here that we can also use in > release > >>> notes: > >>> https://activemq.apache.org/jms2[https://activemq.apache.org/jms2] > >>> > >>> As we get closer, I’ll update the web page to drop the RC1 indications. > >>> Sounds like JB is targeting a straight-up 5.17.0. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -Matt Pavlovich > >>> > >>>> On Jan 25, 2022, at 10:05 AM, Christopher Shannon < > >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would say less is better if trying to do the release soon, don't > want > >>> to > >>>> rush anything at the last minute. Seems like there is a lot of JMS 2.0 > >>>> stuff still outstanding and a lot of back and forth on it so I would > >>> expect > >>>> some pushback depending on what goes into it if it isn't spec > compliant, > >>>> etc. > >>>> > >>>> And again we can't call it a JMS 2.0 implementation in terms of a > >>> feature > >>>> as we are not actually supporting JMS 2.0 if all the operations are > just > >>>> UOE. There's no actual functionality being provided other than > >>> supporting > >>>> the Jar (which people can already do) > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:36 AM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Echoing JB.. no JMS 2.0 API in 5.16.x. > >>>>> > >>>>> For 5.17.0, the changes for JMS 2.0 API with UOE, and Camel removal > >>>>> pre-req are merged into main. The first pass of implemented methods > is > >>>>> sitting in PR (I’ll merge this week). I originally thought that we’d > >>> need > >>>>> more time for JMS 2.0 implementation, but I expect to have most > >>>>> functionality in place for the 5.17.0 release. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Matt Pavlovich > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jan 24, 2022, at 8:32 AM, Christopher Shannon < > >>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The plan is still just to use the Unsupported exceptions for the JMS > >>> 2.0 > >>>>>> api right? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, I was having some issues building a test 2.17.0 version as the > >>> test > >>>>>> modules have been moved out of the main modules section in the > pom.xml > >>>>> and > >>>>>> moved under a profile called full.test. This is a problem because > you > >>>>> can't > >>>>>> build the project at all the first time. The way to fix it is to > still > >>>>>> include the modules to be compiled and built all the time but only > run > >>>>> the > >>>>>> tests when the profile is set (so only activate the surefire plugin > >>> when > >>>>>> the profile is set) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This commit breaks it: > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/activemq/commit/b39cd907fd10279b668eee7d0fac304cf23738f2[https://github.com/apache/activemq/commit/b39cd907fd10279b668eee7d0fac304cf23738f2] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:18 AM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey JB- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for the update. I have one more PR for 5.16.4, I’ll get it > out > >>>>> this > >>>>>>> morning for review. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I’ll start merging my 5.17.0 PRs and reading a few others. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>> Matt > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2022, at 1:15 AM, JB Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi guys > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> New update: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - 5.16.4 is ready to be submitted to vote. I’m doing the Jira > triage > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> I will send the vote. > >>>>>>>> - 5.17.0 is almost ready. Log4j2 update works at runtime, I just > >>> have > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> fix some tests (which use appender/logger). I gonna work on this. > We > >>>>> are on > >>>>>>> track: I still plan to submit 5.17.0 to vote end of Jan. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Le 12 janv. 2022 à 12:32, Jonathan Gallimore < > >>>>>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi JB, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That PR looks good in my tests here - thanks for the fix! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 7:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I fixed the SSLTransport issue (about the SSLParameters set): > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/744[https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/744] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As soon as Jenkins will be happy, I will merge. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Then, I will move forward with releases: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - 5.17.0, I'm rebasing and polishing log4j2 update PR > >>>>>>>>>> - 5.16.4, I'm doing a new pass on Jira, we are good to go with > >>> this > >>>>>>>>>> release, I will submit it to vote soon > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2022 18:10, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I'd be more than happy to - thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jon > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 4:57 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jon > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No problem at all ;) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think I have a fix. I will create a PR, if you have time to > >>> take > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>> look, it would be great. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks ! > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2022 17:07, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JB > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This has come about from merging in my PR (thank you for > that, > >>> by > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> way). > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the test failures too, and will help identify a > fix. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2022 at 6:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < > >>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to let you know that I identified a regression in > >>> ActiveMQ: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8445[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8445] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been introduced by commit > >>>>>>>>>>>> 34c4e186fe3d71c82866e89afd2706a3619ca2b4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to fix AMQ-8275 (related to JDK16+ support in > >>>>> SslTransport). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m working on a fix about that. Then I will move forward on > >>>>> 5.16.4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release first, then 5.17.0. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will keep you posted soon. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >