We should at least document how to use ActiveMQ 5.17.0 with JMS 2.0 from a dependency standpoint (like excluding JMS 1 jar from dep and adding JMS 2 as proposed by Chris).
That's the minimum we should do IMHO. We can maybe already update the dep in AMQ client. I propose to wait for Matt's standpoint as he worked on JMS2 stuff (I was the initializer ;)). Regards JB On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:17 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If it doesnt actually implement _any_ of it, then personally I dont > think that makes sense, as I've said before. It's of no consequence to > the people who have already been using a 2.0 api jar with the 1.1 impl > for anything up to 9 years now if that suited them, something which is > trivial to do, and it also doesnt really give any advantage to the > other users who aren't doing that. It would seem largely just > misleading (to me anyway) to add it now all on its own. It has waited > this long, it seems better it could wait just a little longer until it > is actually implemented in a following 5.18.x series, which neednt be > far very away at all once it is actually ready. > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 12:58, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > I agree about the change, and it was not what we agreed on the mailing list. > > > > The initial plan for 5.17.0 about JMS 2.0 is "just" to update the > > client side to support JMS 2.0 and throw UnsupportedOperationException > > for JMS 2.0 specific method. > > I think it's good enough for 5.17.0 to support the first JMS 2.0 round. > > > > More than that (client/broker side) should go in 5.18.0 IMHO. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:35 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Finally doing a 5.17.0 release sounds good. > > > > > > That said, I dont personally think > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/729 is ready for inclusion in > > > a release though, even with an '-rc1' adorned version number > > > previously suggested but apparently no longer planned, since even as a > > > 'first phase' it is surprisingly incomplete, adding some of the JMS 2 > > > 'simplified API' but not even doing much of the basic JMS 1.1 level > > > functionality within it, like setting a MessageListener on a > > > JMSConsumer, or creating a durable subscriber (non-shared), or > > > JMSContext's acknowledge() method for doing client-ack (presumably the > > > message method works though), etc. > > > > > > It also just seems very odd to even think about just *starting* to > > > including stuff like that on main within a couple days of intending to > > > do a release thats nearing being *years* in the making, and getting > > > describe to users as '2-3 weeks' for way over a year now, including > > > multiple times in the last few months. > > > > > > For me, the most obvious idea at this point would actually be for > > > 5.17.x to be branched and proceed without this. Theres a load of stuff > > > in it already that is long overdue like the JDK11 build etc. I would > > > go so far as to say the prior API jar change from early November > > > (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/682) should also be > > > effectively reverted, it makes no sense to me on its own. Then all of > > > this stuff then worked on towards a 5.18.x release that actually > > > implements and tests things to a reasonable level thats less likely to > > > see even trivial use cases fail to work. > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 04:55, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing almost all unit > > > > tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the > > > > activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be good to be > > > > merged. I will do that today. > > > > > > > > Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using jetty modules > > > > instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45. > > > > > > > > I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones from Matt. @Matt > > > > can you please ping me on slack to check together the status of the > > > > PRs ? > > > > > > > > Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote this Thursday if > > > > there are no objections. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB
