JB, The biggest problem is going to be the datastore for JMS 2.0 to support shared subscriptions. You would need to track shared subscriptions in the store so that will be a good amount of work to make sure it doesn't break anything. This will also require a new openwire version for storing as well as for client communication. It also changes the semantics a bit with how dispatch will work as shared subscriptions are more queue like. An alternative might be to do something under the covers with composite destinations to fake shared subscriptions but having native support in the broker would be much better in my opinion.
Things like scheduled messaging are not a big deal as 5.x already supports it. Also the clients should be fairly easy to update as well. On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 7:08 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi, > > agree, but I started the work about JMS 2.0 first simple support (both > broker and connection factory sides), and it seems to not be so > large/impacting. > That's why I proposed to support it if the effort is not so huge. > > Regards > JB > > On 06/01/2020 12:30, Christopher Shannon wrote: > > JMS 2.0 is definitely not going into 5.16.0 but maybe some future release > > if someone wanted to do the work. However, I seriously doubt 5.x will > > ever support it as it would be a lot of work to update the broker > including > > the datastores to support it and Artemis already has support. > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 5:53 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> You mentioned on the 5.15.11 vote thread that a 5.16.0 vote would > >> happen in late November, but it was suggested to skip that particular > >> week and so folks had returned from holidays around US Thanksgiving. > >> Its been a bit longer now, but is the intent still to release 5.16.0 > >> very soon? I ask as the text added in the report draft indicates > >> 5.16.0 will include JMS 2 support, but there doesnt seem to have been > >> work committed on that as yet. If thats the case it would seem > >> surprising to include in 5.16.0 at this point, several weeks after > >> indication it was primed for release, instead of say doing 5.16.0 and > >> only then adding potentially large changes afterwards towards a 5.17.0 > >> following the needed time to bake them. > >> > >> The mailing list stats should probably be removed from the report, and > >> just a summary line given. The board have in the past typically asked > >> for the stats not to be c&p from the reporter tool unless they show > >> important details. It seems like all they show is that it was a > >> holiday filled quarter and so some things were lower volume than the > >> prior one without thier effect. > >> > >> I tweaked the 5.15.11 release info to use its actual Nov 25th release > date. > >> > >> Robbie > >> > >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 07:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Bruce, > >>> > >>> Happy new year to you as well ! > >>> > >>> I added some content about ActiveMQ (releases, stats, overall > activity). > >>> Please let me know if it's OK for you. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On 06/01/2020 06:28, Bruce Snyder wrote: > >>>> Happy New Year everyone! > >>>> > >>>> Please take a few minutes of your time to submit your contributions to > >> the > >>>> latest report to the ASF board: > >>>> > >>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=144509735 > >>>> > >>>> This report must be submitted by Jan 8, so please don't wait. > >>>> > >>>> Bruce > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >>> jbono...@apache.org > >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
