I’m good w/ all that— I think it is an important discussion to work through as the Java ecosystem is rapidly evolving these days.
I think we can update the Roadmap page: Planned for 6.3 EE 9 JDK [17, 26) Jetty 12 Spring [6.2, 6.3) Planned for 6.4 EE 11 JDK [17, 26) Spring [7, 7.1) Jetty [12.1, 12.2) -Matt > On Mar 23, 2026, at 11:44 AM, Christopher Shannon > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with JB, I don't think we need to bump to ActiveMQ 7.0 just because > of JakartaEE11 or Spring 7. > > The reality is we kind of have to bump the version of Spring in an ActiveMQ > 6.x version because Spring is dropping support soon and there will be users > on ActiveMQ 6.x for a while. We want to make sure we get updates for Spring. > > I think we should bump to ActiveMQ 7.0 when we drop it entirely, or there > is some other major driving force to bump the major version such as > removing deprecated features, finishing shared subscription support, etc. > > Chris > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 2:02 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I don’t believe the transition to EE 11 requires an ActiveMQ 7 version >> bump, as we don't use EE 11 extensively and haven't changed the minimum >> Java version yet. >> >> Regarding the EE scope, the main impact for us would be Servlet 6.1 and >> WebSocket 2.2 (necessitating the Jetty 12.1 upgrade we discussed). >> While Spring 7 moves to JPA 3.2/4.0, we don't utilize those features. >> Similarly, the impact of Bean Validation 3.1 is minimal. >> Outside of EE, a Jackson 3 update will be required, but it won't >> necessitate changes to our code. >> >> Since we have already planned for Jetty 12 in the 6.x series, I believe >> staying within the 6.x versioning is sufficient. >> >> I already started a PR to experiment the Spring 7 update (to clearly >> identify the impact). We will be able to decide with a "concrete" change. >> >> Regards, >> JB >> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 6:29 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Yep, I tried to summarize the information b/w the plans for 6.3 and 6.4 >>> for reference and to note that the plans for a non-Spring runtime are >>> independent of the ActiveMQ major version and any presence of Spring >>> support to address Chris’ comments. >>> >>> I think we are all in favor of updating to Spring 7— just need to decide >>> if it is reasonable to do it in ActiveMQ 6.4 or if it should be ActiveMQ >>> 7.0 due to bump in EE alignment. Spring updated their major version to 7 >> — >>> is part of that due to the EE 11 alignment? >>> >>> In summary: >>> >>> Does the jump in minimum EE spec alignment to EE 11 warrant an ActiveMQ >>> major version bump? >>> >>> I’m leaning towards it should warrant a bump to ActiveMQ 7.0. >>> >>> -Matt Pavlovich >>> >>>> On Mar 21, 2026, at 10:45 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> FYI, I said in 6.4 for Spring 7 (not 6.3). >>>> >>>> 6.3 is as planned (still Spring 6). >>>> >>>> The purpose of this thread is to decide when to update to Spring 7. As >>> it's >>>> a not a core change on the runtime (still using Spring), I'm more in >>> favor >>>> to keep Spring based runtime for the 6.x series. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 4:28 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Removing Spring entirely, is really — provide an alternate boot+config >>>>> option. Then the option is to make the new boot option the default (ie >>>>> Spring no longer required). There is no downside to keeping the old >>> Spring >>>>> wiring around for compatibility (the xbean annotations are in a >>> comment, so >>>>> there is no compile or runtime dependency). That will allow for >> gradual >>>>> conversion of the unit tests and give us time to write spring -> new >>> thing >>>>> config converters. >>>>> >>>>> Here is our current dependency matrix: >>>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/ >>>>> >>>>> Planned for 6.3 >>>>> >>>>> JDK [17, 26) >>>>> Spring [6.2, 6.3) >>>>> Jetty [12.0, 12.1) >>>>> EE 9 >>>>> >>>>> JB’s proposal is (check my work): >>>>> >>>>> JDK [17, 26) >>>>> Spring [7, 7.1) >>>>> Jetty [12.1, 12.2) >>>>> EE 11 >>>>> >>>>> I don’t know what all is included in the Spring 7 upgrade; however, >> the >>>>> two-step EE version bump seems worthy of a discussion if a major >> version >>>>> bump is warranted. The new boot and config would be _new_ modules, so >> we >>>>> can add them in a 7.1, 7.2, etc. >>>>> >>>>> -Matt >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2026, at 4:29 PM, Christopher Shannon < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alright, if we are removing Spring entirely for ActiveMQ 7 then we >> can >>>>>> upgrade to Spring 7.x for ActiveMQ 6.4. >>>>>> >>>>>> Spring 6.2.x is almost EOL and I have no doubt there will eventually >>> be a >>>>>> CVE that pops up so I think we need to go with Spring 7.0 at some >> point >>>>> in >>>>>> ActiveMQ 6.x >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 5:22 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> [email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My proposal was to remove spring for ActiveMQ 7. I have a prototype >>> for >>>>>>> that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I would prefer to stay with 6 series with Spring. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just me €0.01 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le ven. 20 mars 2026 à 21:47, Christopher Shannon < >>>>>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wasn't the plan to get rid of Spring entirely for ActiveMQ 7.0 or >> at >>>>>>> least >>>>>>>> make it optional? Will that work be ready, I haven't looked to see >>> what >>>>>>>> needs to be done to finish decoupling other than the configuration >>>>>>> piece. I >>>>>>>> know we talked about a builder pattern or some other way to >>> configure a >>>>>>>> broker. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 4:27 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we couple that with JDK 25, ActiveMQ 7 makes sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 8:24 PM Matt Pavlovich < >> [email protected] >>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think Jetty 12 to 12.1 won’t be too complicated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think we need to get the Jetty 12 upgrade merged (the blocker >> is >>>>>>> web >>>>>>>>>> console EL templating isn’t working yet) into 6.3.x. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Might be good to go ahead and call it ActiveMQ 7 w/ Spring 7 and >> EE >>>>>>> 11— >>>>>>>>>> effectively mark ActiveMQ 6.x as the transition to more stable >>>>>>>>>> JDK/Spring/EE alignment going forward. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Matt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2026, at 11:17 AM, Christopher Shannon < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One thing to be aware of is that Spring 7.x requires EE 11. So >> it >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> require both upgrading to Jetty 12.1.x (not Jetty 12.0.x) as >> well >>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> Jakarta EE 11 and I think we might only be using EE 9 right now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what issues might arise from bumping to EE 11, >> maybe >>>>>>>> none >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> long as we don't use the new features. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Spring 6.2.x is EOL in 3 months so it probably makes sense but >>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> be aware of. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 10:34 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For the coming ActiveMQ 6.4.0 release, I propose to upgrade to >>>>>>>> Spring >>>>>>>>>> 7.x. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Spring 7.x is still compatible with JDK 17 but also has better >>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 25. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The reason why I'm proposing ActiveMQ 6.4.x is because Spring >> 7.x >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> require Jetty 12.x. >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt started the Jetty 12.x update, so we have a dependency to >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> work to >>>>>>>>>>>> have a clean Spring 7.x upgrade. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will chat with Matt if he needs help on the Jetty 12.x >> update. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you ok to plan Spring 7.x update for ActiveMQ 6.4.0 ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> For further information, visit: >>> https://activemq.apache.org/contact >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact >>> >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
