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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

Reply via email to