Hi As said I did it already but forgot to push.
I will take a look about your change to check if it’s the same I did. Regards JB Le sam. 23 juil. 2022 à 21:46, Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> a écrit : > Got the test application working, a PR with a fix that provides > simultaneous support for JMS 1.1 and JMS 2.0 via the same Karaf feature > (activemq-client). > > Please take a look at the comment on the ticket: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8971 > > The good news about this fix is that it fixes backward compatibility for > JMS 1.1 applications while retaining JMS 2.0 compatibility (i.e. does not > further break backward compatibility). > > Art > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 9:15 AM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: > > > Still working on a test project - almost got it working. > > > > Art > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 8:27 AM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> 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 < > 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 > >>> > > > >>> > >> >
