Hi, If Matt is comfortable with the JMS2 change, maybe it is worth considering quickly ?
My main point is that it has been discussed on the mailing list and it seems we had a consensus to include the first JMS2 round in 5.17.0. We can always change the plan, but again, I would at least include a quick documentation how to use JMS2 with ActiveMQ client. Regards JB On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:42 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Re: AMQ-7309 and PR-729 > > Robbie’s latest review caught an in-flight WIP. I had not yet requested > re-review. I am in the process verifying the feasibility of supporting > disableMessageID support within the wider range of unit tests. I will request > re-reviews once the additional tests and clean-ups are pushed through. > > There have been a number of good suggestions in the first pass, and almost > all of those have already been implemented. I don’t see any reason this won’t > be the case for the next pass. > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On Feb 21, 2022, at 6:35 AM, 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 >
