Having the two specs bundles can be applied on 5.17.x as well: it will extend the JMS version coverage.
I'm testing it now. If I have issues (I'm pretty sure, it gonna work), I can do another approach using conditional feature (condition based on the JMS spec bundle installed). I will keep you posted here and in the Jira. Regards JB On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 4:50 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would fix it on 5.17.x as well unless theres some reason not to that > im missing, it really seems no different than it is for 5.16.x. People > can upgrade to 5.17.x from <=5.16.2 as well, and reasonably wouldnt > expect to hit a breakage for this any more than they should on 5.16.x, > since it also does not implement JMS 2 either. > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 15:36, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > Agree: I should not have changed on 5.16.x, keep it for 5.17.x. > > > > Now that it has been released, I think the best approach is to provide both > > spec bundles. > > > > Let me test and create PR. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > Le mar. 21 juin 2022 à 16:07, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > > > > > The obvious "why not" answer would be however easy it is, its perhaps > > > not so obvious to people, and it certainly doesnt seem like it should > > > be necessary. Those with things which only use JMS 1.1 and previously > > > worked with <=5.16.2 (its not just 5.15.x upgraders affected) would > > > not typically expect to be broken by a simple update to using 5.16.3+, > > > or to necessarily understand they can work around the feature problem > > > by using the JMS 2 spec when their stuff isnt using that and they are > > > still clearly using a client implementing 1.1. > > > > > > If having both versions provided is possible, fixes simple upgrades > > > for all the existing JMS 1.1 users on <= 5.16.2, and still allows > > > those already working with JMS 2 to use it as now, then that would > > > seem a reasonable middle ground. The spec jar isnt exactly a monstrous > > > overhead after all, especially not compared to the client feature > > > already supplying [most of] the broker etc. > > > > > > Or, you suggested earlier what would happen currently is it would only > > > use/supply 2.0 unless something provided 1.1 first. Can it do the > > > reverse, i.e can it provide 1.1 as it did before but still allow for > > > using 2 if already supplied, falling back to using its provided 1.1 if > > > they dont? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 14:01, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, now I understand the confusion: > > > > > > > > Karaf activemq-client feature uses activemq-osgi bundle, not > > > > activemq-client bundle. The activemq-client bundle is not used at all > > > > in the Karaf features: we use the activemq-osgi uber bundle. > > > > > > > > So, if a user uses activemq-client bundle (without the feature), it > > > > will have to install geronimo-spec-jms 1.1 bundle:but nothing changed > > > > there, it's as it was before. > > > > > > > > Now, strictly speaking of the activemq-client karaf feature, it's fine > > > > as it uses activemq-osgi bundle, with the javax.jms,version="[1.1,3)" > > > > range. > > > > > > > > Regarding Art's issue, the problem is that activemq-client karaf > > > > feature provides JMS 2.0 by default, but Art's bundle still import > > > > [1.1,2) (not [1.1,3)). > > > > > > > > I see three options here: > > > > 1. Art can fix his bundles header to use the extended range [1.1,3). > > > > 2. The user who wants to still use JMS 1.1, they can stay with ActiveMQ > > > 5.15.x > > > > 3. The user who wants to still use JMS 1.1, we can add geronimo-spec > > > > jms 1.1 in activemq-client karaf feature, meaning that we will have > > > > both JMS 1.1 and 2.0 packages at runtime. > > > > > > > > Honestly, why not extending the range, easy to do and it works fine > > > > (it's what Karaf and Camel are using) ? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 1:53 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I tested at runtime on activemq-osgi bundle used by activemq-client. > > > > > > > > > > The feature verify would not work with this range. > > > > > > > > > > Let me take a look but I doubt it's the case. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:53 AM Robbie Gemmell > > > > > <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > >
