Hi Art, I have the PR ready that I tested with both JMS 1.1 and JMS 2.0 client bundle.
Regards JB On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:15 PM Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: > > Still working on a test project - almost got it working. > > Art > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 8:27 AM Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Agreed on fixing it going forward and not simply reverting - that would > > really just create another non-backward-compatible change and increase the > > size of the problem. The 5.16.3 - 5.17.1 releases are already in this > > state, and we can't fix that - hopefully anyone updating goes right for the > > latest (once we release a "fix"), and anyone else searching on the problem > > can find the jira ticket, this discussion, or similar resources which can > > point them at a work-around. > > > > I started writing a small test to reproduce the problem and try solutions. > > > > For the idea of providing both spec bundles, that could be a decent > > solution. My only concern is that it could get messy for resolution > > because there would be 2 sets of classes, from different bundles, that > > could end up in the dependency chain. In other words, some users could > > have some bundles wire to the 1.1 spec bundle, others wire to the 2.0 spec > > bundle, and any wiring amongst those would fail because their JMS classes > > aren't the same ones. You know, the dreaded, because it is exposed to > > package '...' from resources ... via two dependency chains. > > > > One solution I'm thinking here - use the feature file's "capability" to > > advertise the existing JMS 2 spec as providing the JMS 1.1 packages. If > > the JMS 2 classes are truly backward-compatible, I believe that could "just > > work" for both cases (JMS 1.1 and JMS 2.0 applications). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Art > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 7:50 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >> > > 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > 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 > >> > > > > <[email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > 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 > >> > > > > > > <[email protected]> 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 < > >> > > [email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > 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 > >> > > > >> > >
