Hi, The first step is at least the client support, similar to what have been done on OpenEJB:
https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2> This allow TomEE to work with ActiveMQ using JMS 2.0. So, the proposal is to have a two steps work: 1. Support JMS 2.0 client side, it will help in tomee, karaf, etc 2. Step by step implement server side support IMHO, 1 would be good step forward already and it works fine for a while in tomee. It will already allow us to update the spec. Regards JB > Le 18 mai 2021 à 21:09, Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > > What exactly are you proposing? Full support would be a tremendous amount > of work. I started a thread on this already a while back here: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-JMS-2-0-support-in-5-x-going-forward-td4757779.html > > My issue here is the lack of clarity. I have no clue what you are proposing > but it needs to be defined so we don't mislead users by claiming there is > JMS 2.0 support when there isn't. I listed out possible paths forward in > that other thread. > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> It’s something that we already discussed and I moved forward on the PR. >> >> I propose to move forward on JMS 2.0 support. >> >> If the community agree, and tests are fine, I don’t see any issue to >> support it in 5.17.0 as best effort. >> >> Anyway, I will propose the PR, and see when to include it. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:36, Christopher Shannon < >> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> Since when is JMS 2.0 supposed to be supported by 5.17.0? >>> >>> None of the features are implemented on the server side for the new API >>> calls. This was brought up in a dev discussion that there won't be JMS >> 2.0 >>> support on the server side in this release. >>> >>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> He’s not PMC but committer, so he can help anyway ;) >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:23, COURTAULT Francois < >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think Romain is still the PMC for TomEE. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:19 >>>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org >>>>> Subject: Re: Which activeMQ (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 or >> 3.0 >>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I’m sure I can ask help from Romain about TomEE releases ;) >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:09, COURTAULT Francois < >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Jean-Baptiste, >>>>>> >>>>>> We are using ActiveMQ in TomEE context. >>>>>> So I am just curious about when this version could be included in >> TomEE >>>> releases. I will push for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:05 >>>>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <mailto:users@activemq.apache.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Which activeMQ (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 or >>>> 3.0 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> The purpose of the RC is to cut an early release (kind of "cut >>>> SNAPSHOT") to allow users to test it before the first "official" >> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I can propose to you is: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. I need couple of weeks to open the PRs and merge it (I’m on JDK11 >>>> now, identifying/fixing/disabling some tests) 2. When done, I will >> inform >>>> you on the mailing list allowing you to test using the SNAPSHOTs >>>> (5.17.0-SNAPSHOT) 3. If I don’t see any blocker on SNAPSHOT, then I will >>>> move forward on 5.17.0 release >>>>>> >>>>>> Does it sound good to you ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> JB >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:59, Simon Billingsley >>>> <simon.billings...@matrixx.com.INVALID> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the details information. >>>>>>> I am interested in the Log4J 2 upgrade. >>>>>>> How long does the release take after the RC process normally? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Simon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 May 2021, at 15:53, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net >>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto: >> j...@nanthrax.net >>>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net><mailto: >> j...@nanthrax.net >>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi François, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ActiveMQ 5.17.0 will support JMS 2.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Basically, what I’m planning for ActiveMQ 5.17.0: >>>>>>> - JDK11 build >>>>>>> - Spring 5 >>>>>>> - Log4j2 >>>>>>> - JMS 2.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About date target, I’m working on JDK11 build now and the other PRs >>>> will follow. I would like to submit a first 5.17 RC end of June. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:48, COURTAULT Francois < >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> <mailto: >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com>><mailto: >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> <mailto: >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question to be answered is in the Subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
