o the announcement.
Thanks all for your vote!
Regards
JB
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:40 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.5 release to your vote. This release is
> a maintenance release on the 5.17.x series bringing:
> - fix on stale queues when
The ActiveMQ team is pleased to announce Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.2 release.
It’s a maintenance release on the ActiveMQ 5.18.x series, bringing:
- fix potential NPE when removing consumer with selector
- fix composite consumers in a Network of Brokers
- fix memory leak on the STOMP transport when clie
The ActiveMQ team is pleased to announce Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.5 release.
It’s a maintenance release on the ActiveMQ 5.17.x series, bringing:
- fix on stale queues when a connection is long to shutdown
- fix on KahaDB where the db files may be larger than the maxLength
configuration
- fix on compo
Hi,
With the new Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.2 and 5.17.5 releases, we now
publish official docker images.
You can find these images directly on Docker Hub:
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/activemq/tags
You can pull directly the images with:
docker pull apache/activemq:5.18.2
or
docker pull apache/a
Hi Justin,
It has been discussed but not the name specifically.
As we use apache/activemq-artemis, I thought "logical" to use
apache/activemq (but maybe activemq-classic makes more sense).
I'm not sure we will be able to use apache/activemq/classic and
apache/activemq/artemis, but we can definit
Thanks all, I will rename apache/activemq to apache/activemq-classic.
Regards
JB
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 3:57 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> This weekend JB announced [1] the availability of official Docker images
> for ActiveMQ "Classic" in the "apache/activemq" namespace [2].
>
> Perhaps I misse
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:54 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.30.0 release.
>
> This is mainly a bug-fix release with a few small improvements and a
> handful of dependency upgrades.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
Hi,
I moved the images to the new apache/activemq-classic repository.
You can find the available images here:
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/activemq-classic/tags
Regards
JB
On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 7:31 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> With the new Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the report !
It looks good to me. About Classic, you mentioned the two releases we
did in June and the work about "Jakarta broker" planned for 5.19.x.
We will provide more details in the next report (I should have a more
concrete roadmap about 5.19.x just after my vacations).
Hi,
FYI, I'm resuming the work on AMQ 5.x in order to head to 5.19.0 release.
Regards
JB
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:32 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Heads up-
>
> The Jakarta PR is merged. ‘main’ is now JDK 17, Jakarta, Spring 6, Jetty 11
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Aug 29, 2023, at 10:
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:40 PM Havret wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have put together another release of activemq-nms-api. Please review it
> and vote accordingly.
>
> This release adds an API allowing users to consume messages asynchronously
> using the new AsyncMessageListe
Hi all,
As you know, ActiveMQ 5.19.x is in preparation with importants
changes: JMS 2, Jakarta namespace, Spring 6, ...
For ActiveMQ 5.19.x, I propose to change the OSGi packaging (client
and broker). Today we have OSGi bundles for client and broker, with
Karaf features installing all dependent f
e a plan to remove Spring
> framework dependencies and use another lighter IoC framework or be more
> low level with the JDK17 and soon JDK21 for example?
>
> Thanks for your great job on ActiveMQ!
>
> regards,
>
> François
>
> On 11/09/2023 14:07, Jean-Baptiste
replaced by standard java features).
>
> Regarding coupling "OSGi with Karaf" I know for sure some projects using
> activemq without karaf, so this is again just a convenience thing, it is
> easier to use with a karaf feature, but if you have other deployment
> targets why
Hi,
I agree and it's actually something we likely discussed while ago
related to renaming as for me we have two really different subprojects
(https://lists.apache.org/thread/f0rqkq01xgyogqownx38k1mdsy69lzvm).
IMHO, ActiveMQ should use 6.x, 7.x, 8.x; ... versioning (and so jump
to 6.x now with Spr
iveMQ release as
> it is no longer possible to upgrade the dependency independently
>
> - I don't know any project that followed this path with success,
> felix-http even has dropped now their support for embedded jetty (what
> is one of the rare case where this could work qui
> > the outside if you still want to allow collaboration?
> >
> > - Every update to a dependency will require a full ActiveMQ release as
> > it is no longer possible to upgrade the dependency independently
> >
> > - I don't know any project that followed this path w
ebsite under its component area?
>
> On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 05:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree and it's actually something we likely discussed while ago
> > related to renaming as for me we have two really differen
Just to be clear: I will keep the current approach upgrading to spring 6
etc. In the meantime, I will work on SMX/Karaf requirements for ActiveMQ.
Regards
JB
Le mar. 12 sept. 2023 à 10:51, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a
écrit :
> Ok fair enough.
>
> I will update the features and OSG
;
> As Karaf can even wrap bundles dynamically you even don't need OSGi
> metadata at all for third party libs you depend on.
>
>
> Am 12.09.23 um 07:53 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré:
> > About your points:
> > - I agree with the overhead but is it really an issue ?
Is it a good time to talk about ActiveMQ "Something" instead of
"Classic" ? (I hate this "classic" naming (it sounds weird to me) and
most of people uses simply Artemis and ActiveMQ as name)
I proposed ActiveMQ Artemis and ActiveMQ Leto (Leto is the mother of
Artemis in Greek mythology) to have a
/09/2023 13:07, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> > >>> Same thoughts as last time you proposed it really. Adding Leto would
> > >>> not be an improvement for me, more actually the reverse. I think it's
> > >>> fine as it is, ActiveMQ 5.x / 6.x, adding Leto would be mo
etc.? You won't be able to use the
> version number anymore to differentiate the two.
>
> Clarity is really important for everyone in the community - especially in
> support scenarios. I work a lot on Stack Overflow with folks using both
> brokers and having a verbal umbrella for
to it as "ActiveMQ 5.x".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ActiveMQ Artemis has had its own versioning and brand since the
> > > > beginning
> > > > >> going back many years so I don't think getting rid of "Classic"
Hi,
The main change is JDK17 required by the update to Spring 6.x, this is
actually the update that implies a new version (ActiveMQ is coupled to
Spring right now).
About jakarta, even on Artemis, I guess you had an impact for the
users as you moved client from javax.jms to jakarta.jms, right ?
B
I agree and that's ActiveMQ 5.x stays with javax.jms and ActiveMQ 6.x
changes to jakarta.jms.
So we are fully aligned and it shows that ActiveMQ 6.x is cleaner.
If users want to still use javax.jms then they will use ActiveMQ 5.x,
if they want to use jakarta.jms, they will use ActiveMQ 6.x.
It's
gt; > On Sep 14, 2023, at 11:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > wrote:
> >
> > I agree and that's ActiveMQ 5.x stays with javax.jms and ActiveMQ 6.x
> > changes to jakarta.jms.
> >
> > So we are fully aligned and it shows that ActiveMQ 6.x is cleaner.
>
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:40 PM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0 release.
> This is the 2nd Respin of the release (RC2)
>
> This was a large release overall with many improvements, and I'm proud
> of what we accomplished
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the reminder, I will contribute the ActiveMQ part as we
have a lot to share :)
Regards
JB
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:35 PM Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Please contribute to the next ASF board report via the following file:
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-web
://github.com/apache/activemq-website/blob/cb0ab34743d0aa073b9a28a3f1c77b571142328b/src/team/reports/DRAFT-ActiveMQ-board-report.txt
>
> On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 09:40, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Thanks for the reminder, I will contribu
Hi guys,
We made good progress on ActiveMQ 6.0.0 preparation, including big changes.
I still have a few changes and refactorings to do, I think I need a
couple of weeks max.
I propose to target mid October to submit ActiveMQ 6.0.0 to vote.
In the meantime, I will start to do a pass/changes on the
Thanks Matt,
I will do review/merge on your PRs.
Regards
JB
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:33 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Hi JB-
>
> Sounds good, my changes are all merged or in pending PR (2 PRs).
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Oct 2, 2023, at 12:44 A
will keep you posted asap.
Regards
JB
Le lun. 2 oct. 2023 à 07:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a
écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> We made good progress on ActiveMQ 6.0.0 preparation, including big changes.
> I still have a few changes and refactorings to do, I think I need a
> couple of weeks max.
&
Hi guys,
Even if we are pretty busy and focused on ActiveMQ 6.0.0 release
preparation (as said in another email, I should be able to submit the
release to vote next week), I think we can anticipate a little the
future of ActiveMQ.
ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is a major milestone for the project, heading to a m
gt; projects under the ActiveMQ umbrella. Using Jira has been cumbersome.
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 6:05 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Even if we are pretty busy and focused on ActiveMQ 6.0.0 release
> > p
ndividual component. I believe that having
> different ways of doing the same thing for different components on the same
> project is going to be confusing and frustrating for users and developers
> alike.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:13 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
&
By almost there, I mean that it's there and we can just ask to trigger.
>
> Would the plan be to make all the Jira projects read-only and migrate open
> issues? If so, do all the existing comments on the open issues get migrated?
Yes, all will be migrated: issues, releases, commen
ures :)
That's true Jira has much more features than GH issues, but we are not using it.
If we would use Kanban, custom fields, etc, I would agree, but it's
not the case currently.
I'm a little puzzled here: I get your points and they are fair,
feedback from others is pretty positive.
Hi guys,
A quick update about ActiveMQ 6.0.0.
I fixed the issues detected, I will open the corresponding PRs soon.
The target date to submit the release to vote is the end of this week.
I will keep you posted.
Regards
JB
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> H
us
Just my $0.01
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:27 PM Francois Papon
wrote:
>
> About the features Github also have projects, roadmap, kanban
>
> I cannot see which features are missing for the common ASF projects.
>
> On 18/10/2023 11:40, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote
other
> 20 projects in Jira.
>
> So I think we would need the PMC to agree to move all the projects to GH
> for issue tracking and I don't think that support will be there to do that.
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, m
.
So, expect the vote on Wednesday :)
Thanks
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:01 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> A quick update about ActiveMQ 6.0.0.
>
> I fixed the issues detected, I will open the corresponding PRs soon.
>
> The target date to submit the
Hi all,
I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.3 release to your vote. This release is
a maintenance release on the 5.18.x series bringing:
- fix on destinations create when message is delayed
- fix on moving message to DLQ when produce via HTTP and TTL is reached
- improvement on KahaDB memory consumption
Hi all,
I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.6 release to your vote. This release is
a maintenance release on the 5.17.x series bringing:
- improvement on KahaDB memory consumption
- add additional fields on JMX Connection MBean
- improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
- a lot of depe
Hi guys,
I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.7 release to your vote.
We did a single improvement in this release:
- improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
Here's the Release Notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12353758
Maven Stag
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.3 release to your vote. This release is
> a maintenance release on the 5.18.x series bringing:
> - fix on destinations create when message is
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:01 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.6 release to your vote. This release is
> a maintenance release on the 5.17.x series bringing:
> - improvement on KahaDB memory consumption
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:34 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.7 release to your vote.
> We did a single improvement in this release:
> - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
>
>
ement (email
and website).
Thanks all for your vote !
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.3 release to your vote. This release is
> a maintenance release on the 5.18.x series bringing:
> - fix on d
epare announcement.
Thanks all for your vote!
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:01 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.6 release to your vote. This release is
> a maintenance release on the 5.17.x series bringing:
> - improvement on KahaDB mem
o the announcement.
Thanks all for your vote!
Regards
JB
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:34 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.7 release to your vote.
> We did a single improvement in this release:
> - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable cl
The ActiveMQ team is pleased to announce Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.3 release.
It's a maintenance release on the ActiveMQ 5.18.x series, bringing:
- fix on destinations create when message is delayed
- fix on moving message to DLQ when produce via HTTP and TTL is reached
- improvement on KahaDB memory c
The ActiveMQ team is pleased to announce Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.6 release.
It's a maintenance release on the ActiveMQ 5.17.x series, bringing:
- improvement on KahaDB memory consumption
- add additional fields on JMX Connection MBean
- improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
- a l
The ActiveMQ team is pleased to announce Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.7 release.
It's a maintenance release on the ActiveMQ 5.16.x series, bringing:
- improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
You can find details on the Release Notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.js
Yeah, I think it's a good idea to separate the example:
- they can leave with their own lifecycle
- they don't "impact" build on the main
+1 for me
Regards
JB
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:12 PM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
>
> I'd like to move the artemis examples out of the main build+repo and
> into a
Hi all,
I submit ActiveMQ 5.15.16 to your vote. We did one improvement on this release:
- improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
Here's the Release Notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12353758
Maven Staging Repository:
http
an to submit 6.0.0 to
vote on Monday.
Regards
JB
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 6:21 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm glad to provide an update about ActiveMQ 6.0.0: after a full week
> of fixes, tests, etc, I made good progress. However, I still have a
> f
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:00 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit ActiveMQ 5.15.16 to your vote. We did one improvement on this
> release:
> - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
>
> Here'
s all for your vote!
Regards
JB
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:00 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit ActiveMQ 5.15.16 to your vote. We did one improvement on this
> release:
> - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
>
> Here
Thanks Art :)
Le jeu. 26 oct. 2023 à 19:25, Arthur Naseef a écrit :
> BTW, I just found this while doing something unrelated to our 6.0.0
> release.
>
> Maven central already has an apache-activemq artifact released with version
> 6.0.0:
>
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.activemq
Hmm weird. I will request removal.
Le jeu. 26 oct. 2023 à 19:25, Arthur Naseef a écrit :
> BTW, I just found this while doing something unrelated to our 6.0.0
> release.
>
> Maven central already has an apache-activemq artifact released with version
> 6.0.0:
>
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifac
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 1:16 PM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.2 release.
>
> This addresses a defect introduced in the recent 2.31.1 release.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache
preparation
tomorrow.
Sorry for the delay.
Regards
JB
Le jeu. 26 oct. 2023 à 13:50, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a
écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> As you probably saw, we did a bunch of ActiveMQ and Artemis releases
> during the past two days.
>
> Unfortunately, due to that, I didn'
Hi Colm
It's on the broker side, not on the client side. However, the change
is also on client side as it's on the openwire marshalling (shared
between the client and the broker).
Regards
JB
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:28 PM Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Security vendors (e.g.
> https://s
igh wrote:
>
> Thanks JB. What's to stop a malicious broker trying to recreate the
> vulnerability then by sending a crafted message to a client?
>
> Colm.
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:53 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi Colm
> >
> > I
Hi guys,
Yesterday, we found a new issue (major) to fix for 6.0.0. I'm on it.
Once done, I will submit the release to vote: probably tonight or
tomorrow my time.
Stay tuned!
Regards
JB
On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 7:34 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys
>
> You might have
Hi guys,
After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submit Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
release to your vote.
This release is a big milestone for ActiveMQ, starting the new 6.x series.
This release includes a bunch of changes, especially:
- Jakarta Messaging 3.1, JMS 2.0, JMS 1.1 (still work to do to be
f
jira/browse/AMQ-9388 and
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1117
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 2:42 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submit Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> > release to your
Hi guys,
We found a blocker in this release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-9388
I cancel this vote to fix and prepare a new one.
Regards
JB
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submi
Hi guys,
After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submit Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
release to your vote.
This release is a big milestone for ActiveMQ, starting the new 6.x series.
It's the second RC where we fixed AMQ-9388 detected during the first vote.
This release includes a bunch of changes, es
+1 (binding)
I did the same tests I did during release preparation :)
Some fixes/polish to do for 6.0.1 but nothing blocker :)
Regards
JB
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 11:05 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submit Apac
Hi,
The first support has started in ActiveMQ 6.0.0 currently in vote.
However, some features are not fully implemented, it's planned for
6.1/6.2 releases.
For instance, regarding Shared Durable Topic, you can see some method
throwing IllegalStateException("Operation not supported by a
TopicSessi
> probably going to be other issues that come up that require us to release
> 6.1.0 much faster than shared durables or shared subs will be ready so the
> only thing we can really say is it will be available at some point in a 6.x
> release
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:41 AM Jean-Bap
bsite related PR and I will update the website with
javadoc, announcement, etc.
Then, I will do the announcement.
Thanks all for your vote !
Regards
JB
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 11:05 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submit
After several weeks (months ?) of work, the ActiveMQ team is pleased
to announce Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 release.
It's a major milestone for the project, starting the 6.x series, and bringing:
- Jakarta Messaging 3.1, JMS 2.0 support (new features will come in
the 6.x series)
- Jakarta EE namespace
> Riccardo Modanese
> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> Date: Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 17:40
> To: dev@activemq.apache.org ,
> us...@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: [ANN] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 has been released!
> After several weeks (months ?) of work, the ActiveMQ team is pleased
&
ot;Classic"
> code-base it will become the next major version of ActiveMQ.”
>
> It means will be ActiveMQ 7?
>
> [1] https://activemq.apache.org/
>
> Regards,
>
> Riccardo
>
> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> Date: Monday, 20 November 2023 at 09:17
> To
Hi
Actually, I'm on it as I'm starting to prepare 6.0.1-SNAPSHOT.
Give me 10mn and I will push it.
Regards
JB
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:52 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Heads up—
>
> I’m planning to branch main as activemq-6.0.x and then renumber main to
> 6.1.0-SNAPSHOT to support new feature
Done !
Thanks
Regards
JB
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 4:09 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Hey JB-
>
> Sounds good! Go for it.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Nov 20, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Actuall
Severity: Medium
Affected versions:
- Apache ActiveMQ before 5.16.6
- Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.0 before 5.17.4
- Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.0 unaffected
- Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 unaffected
Description:
Once an user is authenticated on Jolokia, he can potentially trigger arbitrary
code execution.
In det
Hi guys,
Following the 6.0.0 release, I submit 6.0.1 to your vote.
This release includes fixes on top of 6.0.0, especially:
- fix Jakarta namespace in ActiveMQ RA
- fix OSGi headers in activemq-cf and activemq-jms-pool
- fix jolokia conf on Windows wrapper
- fix Jetty secure connector example
Re
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:17 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Following the 6.0.0 release, I submit 6.0.1 to your vote.
>
> This release includes fixes on top of 6.0.0, especially:
> - fix Jakarta namespace in ActiveMQ RA
> - fix
Hi Abhisek
ActiveMQ 6.0.1 release is currently in voting.
It fixes the issue on ActiveMQ RAR.
It should be officially released during the weekend.
Regards
JB
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 5:18 AM Abhisek Swain
wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> Can you please update on the ETA or timelines for ActiveMQ 6.0.1 r
Hi
I think it's really important to focus on JMS 2 complete impl for 6.1.0.
That's the most important.
I started to work on some impl, a couple are a little longer to impl,
require tests etc.
I don't think early January is reasonable. I would rather try at the
end of January.
I would rather:
1.
a and announce the release.
Thanks all for your vote!
Regards
JB
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:17 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Following the 6.0.0 release, I submit 6.0.1 to your vote.
>
> This release includes fixes on top of 6.0.0, especially:
> - fix Jakart
om topic subscriptions
>
> Reference:
> https://activemq.apache.org/jms2
>
> I think this would work well, since we have Virtual Topic support (which
> is better anyway).
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 2023, at 11:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>
. We have to decide how much work is done by the broker and
> where.
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 2:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>
> > I think it would better to complete JMS 2 in 6.1.0 including shared topic
> > subscriptions.
> > We already did 6.0.x wi
up with a plan of how we are going to
> > implement it. There's multiple ways it could be done and probably
> requires
> > protocol changes. We have to decide how much work is done by the broker
> and
> > where.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 2:18 AM Jean-Baptiste
Hi
ActiveMQ 6.0.1 has been released
(https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.1/).
I'm working on website update and announcement right now.
However, 6.0.1 has the same JMS 3.x support as 6.0.0.
We plan to have new features implemented in 6.1.0.
Regards
JB
On Mon,
The ActiveMQ team is pleased to announce Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.1 release.
It's maintenance release on the ActiveMQ 6.0.x series, bringing:
- Fix Jakarta support in ActiveMQ RA
- Fix OSGi headers in activemq-jms-pool and activemq-cf
- Fix provided jetty.xml example on the SSL connector
- Fix jolokia
Hi François,
We discussed LTS/EOA but without commitment yet.
The thing we agreed on is to maintain 3 branches active (so 6.0.x,
5.18.x, 5.17.x right now). The same as we do in Apache Karaf
basically. I would consider it a kind of informal LTS :)
If we need to have a concrete LTS plan, then 5.18.
*released* branch that we feel is solid to
> base LTS off of vs declaring a future unreleased branch as a LTS release.
>
> -Matt
>
> > On Dec 21, 2023, at 3:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi François,
> >
> > We discussed LTS/EOA but withou
Hi Sophie
Which version are you using?
The situation is the same: no special properties on the message
(redelivery, ...) ?
Regards
JB
PS: this kind of message should be sent to the user mailing list
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 10:30 PM Sophie Borchart
wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I’m running into a situatio
I'm doing the "Classic" part.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:53 PM Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Happy new year! Best wishes in 2024!!
>
> Moments ago, we were reminded that the next ActiveMQ board report is due no
> later than Tuesday, Jan 9. This leaves less than one week, so please do
> mov
Hi Bruce
I committed the Classic part and updated some sections.
By the way, we can use reporter
(https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/?activemq) for the board report
(we can create and save draft and contribute on it, then you can just
push the submit button).
Regards
JB
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11
t the report.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Bruce
> >
> > I committed the Classic part and updated some sections.
> > By the way, we can use reporter
> > (https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/?activemq
Snyder
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi JB,
>>>
>>> Ah, that's a great idea and would simplify the collection/submission
>>> process. Unfortunately, it looks like there's something wrong with
>>> Reporter, see the screenshot below:
>>>
&
Hi guys,
Happy new year to all !
After the festive break, I'm back on ActiveMQ :)
I would like to discuss about the roadmap for ActiveMQ
6.0.x/6.1.x/6.2.x/7.x(future):
- For 6.0.x branch, I propose to include fixes and minor dependencies
updates (I have some PRs on the way, Matt also worked on d
p!
> >
> > Just for the note, the 5.x branch will be update only for CVEs purpose?
> > (dependencies or source code)
> >
> > If so, which minor version of 5.x are in the maintenance mode? I guess
> > only the latest 5.18.x right?
> >
> > regards
It looks good to me.
Thanks,
Regards
JB
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:38 PM Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>
> As background, last week it was discovered (thanks Justin) that there was
> an oversight with the Exception handling over OpenWire with the upgrade to
> Jakarta apis in the 6.0.x broker.
> http
401 - 500 of 558 matches
Mail list logo
