Hi guys,
As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade
Personally, I'd prefer something that still ran on Java 8, but I'll
understand if I'm in the minority.
What benefits do we get from upgrading Derby to 10.15.1.3 and therefore
requiring Java 9?
Jon
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:26 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> As I'm working on 5.1
Hi Jon,
I took Derby as example, it's more a general topic.
It's also a question of timing, I can cut 5.16.0 as it's (with JDK 11
support but still JDK 8 support as well) and prepare 5.17.0 with JDK9 min.
Regards
JB
On 31/10/2019 11:35, Jonathan Gallimore wrote:
> Personally, I'd prefer somethi
Hi JB
Thanks for the reply (and for raising the original topic)! To clarify my
position a bit (as it might seem a bit random), I'm coming at this from the
perspective of an Apache TomEE contributor and we use ActiveMQ in TomEE to
provide JMS - and that provides both the ability to connect to Activ
I suggested on the derby update PR that this thread was needed mainly
since the min version changing hadnt been discussed before that I
could recall, only that 11 should be fully supported. It wasnt clear
to me anyone had reallypreviously considered it actually changing, I
know I definitely hadnt.
Hi All,
Thanks all how reviewed rc1, hopefully all the points raised are now resolved.
I have put together a second spin for a Apache NMS AMQP release, please
check it and vote accordingly.
This release effectively will be the first release of a NMS AMQP client..
Also includes some modernisatio
+1 (non binding)
Regards
JB
On 31/10/2019 16:18, Michael Pearce wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks all how reviewed rc1, hopefully all the points raised are now resolved.
>
> I have put together a second spin for a Apache NMS AMQP release, please
> check it and vote accordingly.
>
> This release effe
On 10/31/19 6:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi guys,
As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
I started some upgrade to fully support those
Hi Tim,
I agree, let me focus on 5.16.0 running with JDK 8, 9, 11, 12 ...
It makes sense.
I'm completing 5.15.11 now, and 5.16.0 will follow.
Regards
JB
On 31/10/2019 16:53, Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 10/31/19 6:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> As I'm working on 5.16.0 releas
+1 (non-binding)
Kudos to Michael and Krzysztof for taking this on and completing it. I'm
happy to see it move forward.
Ragnar
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:18 AM Michael Pearce
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks all how reviewed rc1, hopefully all the points raised are now
> resolved.
>
> I have put
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 12:53 PM Ragnar Paulson
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Kudos to Michael and Krzysztof for taking this on and completing it. I'm
> happy to see it move forward.
>
> Ragnar
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:18 AM Michael Pearce
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
>
+1 (non-binding)
Build the package on linux and windows
Ran the unit tests, passed
Ran the interop tests, passed (against two brokers)
Thanks for all the work put into this.
Chris Morgan
-
Chris Morgan
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
12 matches
Mail list logo
