+1 on openwire generator code project modernization
> On Dec 4, 2023, at 6:19 AM, Christopher Shannon
> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking of protocol changes, if we do generate a new openwire version to
> add shared sub commands we have to actually fix the Openwire generator
> including the CVE issue.
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't see how we can release shared subscription support for 6.1.0 at
>> this point. We haven't even come up with a plan of how we are going to
>> implement it. There's multiple ways it could be done and probably requires
>> protocol changes. We have to decide how much work is done by the broker and
>> where.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 2:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would better to complete JMS 2 in 6.1.0 including shared topic
>>> subscriptions.
>>> We already did 6.0.x with partial JMS 2 support, which is so so from user
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> I would prefer to wait few weeks for 6.1.0 to give us time to complete JMS
>>> 2.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> Le lun. 4 déc. 2023 à 07:52, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Hey JB --
>>>>
>>>> These JMS 2.0 features are planned for v6.1.0:
>>>>
>>>> AMQ-8464 PR #1046 6.1.0, 5.18.x JMSConsumer .receiveBody(Class) methods
>>>> AMQ-8320 PR #982 6.1.0, 5.18.x Delivery Delay Support for Message
>>>> DeliveryDelay feature
>>>> AMQ-8324 PR #1045 6.1.0, 5.18.x JMSProducer features Completion
>>> Listener
>>>> async send support
>>>>
>>>> This would just leave Shared Topic Subscriptions, which is currently
>>>> planned for v6.2.0.
>>>>
>>>> AMQ-8323 6.2.0, 5.18.x Shared Topic Consumer Multi-consumer
>>> (queue-like)
>>>> consuming from topic subscriptions
>>>>
>>>> Reference:
>>>> https://activemq.apache.org/jms2
>>>>
>>>> I think this would work well, since we have Virtual Topic support (which
>>>> is better anyway).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 2, 2023, at 11:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's really important to focus on JMS 2 complete impl for
>>> 6.1.0.
>>>>> That's the most important.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started to work on some impl, a couple are a little longer to impl,
>>>>> require tests etc.
>>>>> I don't think early January is reasonable. I would rather try at the
>>>>> end of January.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would rather:
>>>>> 1. Focus on 6.0.2 for fixes (I'm preparing 5.18.x/5.17.x too as they
>>>>> include fixes as well)
>>>>> 2. Focus on 6.1.0 to complete JMS 2.x support. That's probably the
>>>>> most important (honestly, I'm not a big fan of JMS 2.x support in
>>>>> ActiveMQ 6.0.x, it could be confusing for users).
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 4:10 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve started organizing some JIRAs for v6.1.0. I’m thinking
>>>> early-January for release target timeframe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Additional JMS 2.0 impls
>>>>>> - New features for observability
>>>>>> - Code base modernization
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
