I'm going to start a new discuss thread on JMS 2.0 in 5.x since there seems
to be some confusion on the goals and what is happening after 5.16.0 is done
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:03 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
wrote:
> Just to be clear: I wanted to include JMS 2.0 client update in 5.16.0, but
> rece
There seems to be some confusion on what the plan is for JMS 2.0 support in
5.x so I figured it was worth starting a discussion on it.
First, targeting a complete implementation of "full" JMS 2.0 support for
5.17.0 is not very realistic in my opinion. I think 5.17.0 needs to go out
faster than 5.1
Hi,
Thanks Chris for bringing this up.
First, a quick update about JMS 2.0: client API compatibility is almost
done. I tested in Karaf, Camel and standalone Java and so far so good.
My first intention when I proposed the JMS 2.0 support is first on
client side, as least to allow client to use JM
Hi everyone,
Now that we fixed the ASF header issue, I'm submitting ActiveMQ 5.16.0
release to your vote (take #2).
This release is an important milestone as the runtime supports JDK 11.
The full build with JDK 11 is planned for 5.17.0.
It also includes bunch of fixes, improvements and much more
I think it's fine to do a PR for your client side changes as a first step
(I will review it as well) as long as we are clear on what is and isn't
supported. We just need to be careful and not advertise "JMS 2.0" support
when that's not true and instead specify exactly what is and isn't
supported a
+1
Thank you, JB!
* Downloaded apache-activemq-5.16.0-unix.tar.gz and validated SHA1 sum
* Tested startup / shutdown
* Various message testing
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 9:23 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Now that we fixed the ASF header issue, I'm
I think the approach is sound. I don’t see a lot of
JMS-v2.0-as-a-minumum-version
dependency in many 3rd party systems that integrate with JMS. They tend to use
the v1.1 API
method signatures anyway. IMHO throwing an UnsupportedException is a reasonable
for the
client-side JMS 2.0-specific met
+1, looks good to me
* Validated signatures and checksums
* Verified license headers on source using 'mvn apache-rat:check'
* Ran smoke tests
* Verified broker starts properly using tar.gz release
* Verified several of my own tests that I have pass successfully
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:58 AM Ma
My two concerns / requirements for me to give a non negative vote are
1) ensuring anything done works the same with Artemis, we should avoid adding
any changes that cause divergence with compatibility with Artemis using
openwire clients , else we risk introducing further issues for those migrati
+1 (non-binding)
- Tested with Java11 runtime
- Validated with some local projects
Thanks JB for this release!
regards,
François
fpa...@apache.org
Le 25/06/2020 à 16:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
> Hi everyone,
>
> Now that we fixed the ASF header issue, I'm submitting ActiveMQ 5.16.0
>
+1 (Binding)
Using release binary
Ran some nms openwire smoke tests
Ran some jms openwire smoke tests
Validated checksums
Sent from my iPad
> On 25 Jun 2020, at 17:45, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> +1, looks good to me
>
> * Validated signatures and checksums
> * Verified licens
Casting my own +1 (binding)
Regards
JB
> Le 25 juin 2020 à 16:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit :
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Now that we fixed the ASF header issue, I'm submitting ActiveMQ 5.16.0
> release to your vote (take #2).
>
> This release is an important milestone as the runtime supports JD
12 matches
Mail list logo
