JB, I was writing up a response when I saw Robbies and I have the same questions.
What is your plan for handling the Jakarta namespace? Are you just using Maven to generate another module that's a copy of activemq-client? Also, you said Spring 6 is not very difficult and could be in 5.18.x but doesn't Spring 6 require Jakarta and JDK 17 (as Robbie pointed out)? So if you wanted to include support for that for 5.18.x wouldn't that also imply we have to have the Jakarta changes too? Also, I haven't tested with JDK 17 but I assume the broker should be compatible with it at runtime (also required for Spring 6). We could also easily add a Jenkins job for JDK 17 if we haven't already. Speaking of which, it looks like the Jenkins build has had a lot of failures and has been unhappy with the Advisory tests since back in November which is odd as it's complaining about JMX (instance already exists). I just re-kicked off a 5.17.x build so will see if it happens again but may need to fix something. Running the tests by itself locally work fine. On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 6:28 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would the plan be to have these first 5.18 releases marked as e.g. > alphas to set people's expectations appropriately around it not yet > implementing most of JMS 2's new functionality, only some of the new > 'simplified' API? Or are the PRs going to pick up on completing [more > of] the impl first? > > Doesnt Spring 6 require Java 17, and so anything using it would > similarly? Is the thinking to change the minimum globally, or e.g just > for specific bits using it and then e.g have divergent requirements > for build (17+) and runtime (11+ or 17+ depending on what bits you > use)? > > Matt's reply was around having separate release branches/streams for > java.jms and jakarta.jms namespace support. I think that might be > simplest (and potentially also allowing for different JVM handling > between them) at this stage, I'm doing that elsewhere, though there > are certainly also tradeoffs to it vs alternatives. You were proposing > something different here, can you flesh out your original idea for > comparison? Had you implemented something? > > On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 07:19, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > I started to work on ActiveMQ 5.18.x major release preparation. > > > > Basically, I propose to include (as major changes, in addition of all > > others more "minor" changes :)): > > - JMS 2.x support (mostly client and first part broker) > > - Spring 6 update > > - Jakarta namespace support > > > > I should have the first PRs ready for review very soon. > > > > I would like to propose a first 5.18.0 in Feb. > > > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > > JB >
