Hey All- I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a good thing, but I also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as part of what active branches are supported. This is the path other projects have taken and helps users align things when they are assembling pieces for their environment
If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add JDK 11, but do not move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we add another active branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of active branches out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out security fixes. Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other dependencies is going to become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to align JDK + jakarta in supported branches. I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased implementation is closer to done than the amount of work to revert AMQ-7309. PR-729 has 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this morning. JMS 2.0 tested and validated: - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue) and all message types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text) - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float, double, short, etc.) including min+max data ranges - Foreign message support - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment) Thank you, Matt Pavlovich > On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > I agree. > > @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with Spring5, > log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen quickly ? > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0. The reality is there >> is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are multiple people who do not >> want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move on without. We also need >> to revert the commits from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as >> there is no reason to include that now. >> >> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after wrapping things up >> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff). >> >> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting over version numbers to >> be honest and just want to move on. It's not productive to keep arguing >> anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go out whenever we want. >> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release: >>> >>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR >>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I think it's OK (I'm >>> waiting for the end of Jenkins). >>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR >>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR >>> >>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this standpoint. >>> >>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be great to act about >>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM 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
