The javax.jms; version="[1.1,2)" value I quoted was directly from the Import-Package manifest entry of the 5.16.3 and 5.16.5 activemq-client jars on maven central. On checking 5.17.1 it lists the same.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 09:56, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > activemq-client 5.16.3 does use the right range: > > javax.jms;version="[1.1,3)", > > Else it won't work. > > And by the way, before the change, I sent a couple of messages on the > mailing list as a discussion thread. > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:37 AM Robbie Gemmell > <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I believe the 5.16.x client doesnt have the below, instead saying: > > javax.jms; version="[1.1,2)" > > despite the Feature only supplying the 2.0 version which appears > > incompatible with this. Maybe thats whats tripping Art's usage up > > since he was clearly using <= 5.16.2 before? > > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 09:24, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > By the way, you can see in activemq-client: > > > > > > javax.jms;version="[1.1,3)", > > > > > > So: > > > 1. if your application uses the same range, it works > > > 2. if your application use [1.1,2), than, simple add javax.jms > > > (geronimo) 1.1 bundle > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 7:45 PM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I created the following ticket to address applications failing to load > > > > into > > > > Karaf with AMQ 5.16.3 - 5.17.1 due to an incompatible change in the > > > > activemq-client feature. > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8971 > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks to me like the right fix here is to revert the change to the JMS > > > > 1.1 > > > > spec in the feature because all of the AMQ internals are still 100% on > > > > the > > > > JMS 1.1 spec. The maven-bundle-plugin for client applications is doing > > > > the > > > > right thing by generating "Package-Import" lines with version range > > > > "1.1,2.0)", but the feature doesn't match it. > > > > > > > > It seems we have sacrificed the core case to solve an edge case. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Art
