> The biggest reason 5.x was not bumped was simply because of the whole "Artemis will become version 6.0" thing that prevented the bump for a long time.
Looking back further in the history of Classic, the Java version was bumped from 5 to 6 in 5.5.x. So there's precedent from several years before the donation. > Is there any reason we can't bump Artemis to 3.0.0? I think moving to 3.0.0 would be ideal, but as you note there's lots of other work that we'd want to do before that (e.g. dropping javax completely, removing lots of deprecated stuff, etc.). Unfortunately I don't think there's time for that before we run afoul of the Jetty EOL, and I'm sure there's going to be folks complaining about that as soon as it happens. I do think we'll see Artemis 3.0.0 relatively early in 2025, but not soon enough to mitigate this issue. > Requiring JDK 17 and Jetty 12 upgrade seem like a good reason for a major version bump... I see the Jetty 12 integration as more of an implementation detail. Users really have no way of knowing that Artemis embeds Jetty. All the configuration obfuscates the actual implementation. None of the functionality or configuration is changing. Therefore, I don't see that as a compelling reason for a major version bump. Typically I would consider the Java upgrade a reason for a major version bump, but the precedents both in ActiveMQ and other projects (e.g. Camel) indicate that's not a hard and fast rule. Justin On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 3:05 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > As you said there is a precedent for it but it's probably better for a > major version. The biggest reason 5.x was not bumped was simply because of > the whole "Artemis will become version 6.0" thing that prevented the bump > for a long time. > > Is there any reason we can't bump Artemis to 3.0.0? Requiring JDK 17 and > Jetty 12 upgrade seem like a good reason for a major version bump and at > the same time maybe could clean up any deprecated things hanging around. > Maybe even drop the jms client entirely and just support jakarta, etc. > > It would be nice to see some of the outstanding spec issues resolved like > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1262 before bumping but I > assume that issue in particular won't ever be fixed as there is not a good > way to avoid breaking old clients so I don't think it's a blocker to bump > to 3.0.0. > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 1:04 PM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < > bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It makes sense to me because the main JDK 11 builds already ended the > full > > support and are in the extended support phase. > > > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 at 18:50, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > What version of ActiveMQ Classic are you referring to making this > > change > > > in a minor version? v6.0.0 made the jump to JDK 17, but 5.x did not. > > > > > > To be clear, I wasn't referring specifically to the move to 17. I was > > just > > > saying, in general, the move to a new version of Java has been done in > > > minor releases by both Artemis and Classic. I already outlined where > this > > > was done by Artemis (i.e. in 2.20.0). For Classic this has been done > > three > > > times: > > > > > > - From 5.10.x to 5.11.x the JDK went from 6 to 7 > > > - From 5.14.x to 5.15.x the JDK went from 7 to 8 > > > - From 5.16.x to 5.17.x the JDK went from 8 to 11 > > > > > > My main point here is simply that this change has a precedent in > > ActiveMQ. > > > There are, of course, precedents in other projects as well (e.g. > Camel). > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 11:40 AM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4, 2024, at 11:17 AM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > At first I was hesitant to propose this move in a minor release, > but > > > > then I > > > > > realized we've already done this in both Artemis and Classic. > > > > > > > > Hi Justin- > > > > > > > > What version of ActiveMQ Classic are you referring to making this > > change > > > > in a minor version? v6.0.0 made the jump to JDK 17, but 5.x did not. > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org > > > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
