Hi Robbie, it's what I'm using most of the time. I guess it's obvious for us, not sure if it is for all users.
Regards JB On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:59 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I dont particularly see a great need for such docs as its mainly basic > maven dependency handling long documented elsewhere, and it seems odd > they would be seen as needed now after ~9 years of this. However.. > > One approach would be to have an explicit or implicit JMS 2 dep and > then actually exclude the 1.1 spec dep from the client, e.g something > that would probably fit the bill might be (untested, just > typed+copied): > > <!-- Your JMS 2 related dep here, e.g an API jar directly, or > just another component already bringing it in --> > <dependency> > <groupId>jakarta.jms</groupId> > <artifactId>jakarta.jms-api</artifactId> > <version>2.0.3</version> > </dependency> > > <!-- ActiveMQ 5.x client, minus the JMS 1.1 spec dep --> > <dependency> > <groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId> > <artifactId>activemq-client</artifactId> > <version>5.17.0</version> > <exclusions> > <exclusion> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId> > <artifactId>geronimo-jms_1.1_spec</artifactId> > </exclusion> > </exclusions> > </dependency> > > Another approach is just having both API deps on the classpath, e.g > brought in by the app deps explicitly, or just another component - if > the stuff being done only needs a 1.1 impl functionality it as likely > wont care about them being there or which is used. > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 13:27, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > 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
