Fully agree. That's a very good point. I will update the PR with the Roadmap page and I will also create the GitHub Issues to track this.
Thanks ! Regards JB On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 3:19 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
