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 ActiveMQ running standalone, or to boot up an embedded broker in TomEE itself. We're at the point where we've released TomEE 8, and that targets Jakarta EE 8 (we're not quite certified yet, but we're working on it). Jakarta EE 8 is basically binary compatible with Java EE 8, and therefore is based on Java SE 8. Most app servers seem to be at the point where they work with both Java SE 8 through to 11. As 8 and 11 both have long-term support, we're seeing users choosing one of those Java versions in the main.
>From a TomEE perspective, I think it would be great for us to move to ActiveMQ 5.16.0 on TomEE 8, but still be able to use Java versions 8 through 11. I don't think the Jakarta EE roadmap is fully known yet, but EE 9 is may just be the namespace change (javax. -> jakarta.) and not much else, but imagine the community will be looking at the Java version level before very long. If there are functional benefits to moving to dependencies that require Java 9 or above, that might influence the view of the ActiveMQ community, but I'm not sure on the detail of those dependencies which is why I was asking. From a timing perspective, if its easier to keep Java 8 - 11 support for 5.16.0 and enables the release to happen more quickly, and then look at Java 9+ for 5.17.x, that sounds like it would make sense to me. Thanks for listening to my feedback, I hope it helps :) Jon On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:56 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 Java versions (for > >> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade). > >> > >> We have two options here: > >> > >> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to > >> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance) > >> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the > >> dependencies. > >> > >> Thoughts ? > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> -- > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> [email protected] > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
