I think that sounds like a good idea.

I'd possibly be more aggressive in removing them though. E.g. release
12.x a bit earlier than proposed if possible with them removed
already, whilst still releasing 11.x concurrently for a final
transition period from that point on. Anyone still transitioning can
continue using 11.x in that time. Anyone that already transitioned
uses 12.x.

Or even make that 11.x and a future version of the 10.x stream.

Further to your client point, the project actually has no active AMQP
0-x clients anymore. The focus was on 1.0 clients for over a decade
now. For AMQP 0-10 in particular, I'm also not aware of any clients
outside of Qpid's, and if that is true then there are none still
active for 0-10. Obviously there are many other AMQP 0-9[-1] clients
though.

Robbie

On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 at 15:40, Daniil Kirilyuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Colleagues,
>
> Broker-J currently supports AMQP 0-8, 0-9, 0-9-1, 0-10, and 1.0.
>
> We would like to propose the following gradual retirement of the AMQP 0-x
> protocols:
>
>    - Broker-J 11.0, targeted for 2027: declare AMQP 0-8, 0-9, 0-9-1, and
>    0-10 deprecated. They would remain functional during the 11.x line, but
>    users would be encouraged to migrate to AMQP 1.0.
>
>
>    - Broker-J 12.0, targeted no earlier than 2028: remove support for
>    accepting AMQP 0-x client connections.
>
> The motivation is to concentrate development, testing, maintenance, and
> security work on AMQP 1.0. The Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x client has already been
> retired.
>
> Before deciding on this direction, we would particularly like to understand
> the remaining use of AMQP 0-x with Broker-J:
>
>    - Which AMQP 0-x versions are still used with Broker-J?
>    - Which client libraries and versions are involved?
>    - Are there migration blockers that prevent using AMQP 1.0?
>
> The proposed removal in 12.0 concerns AMQP 0-x wire-protocol support. Any
> removal would need to include a documented and safe upgrade path for
> existing Broker-J installations. In particular, we would need to account
> for existing port configuration, durable messages, and other persisted data
> that use legacy metadata formats.
>
> This is a proposal for community discussion and not a final decision.
>
> Kind regards,
> Daniil Kirilyuk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to