if not 2.17, we could postpone it to 2.18... and then branch 2.17 into 2.17.x.
@Ryan Yeats: on your question, users requiring core client could stay on such a 2.17.x branch.. while the broker could move into 2.18, 2.19, while 2.17.x would stay on JDK 8. So clients would have the option to move to JDK 11, or stay on JDK 8 with 2.17.x... same as you would with any other library. for instance AMQP clients such as the ones from qpid would soon (if not already ) move towards JDK 11+. How that sounds? On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:50 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <ehugo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > While I would love to say yes (given I started to move the build to JDK11), i > have a concern about this move coming soon. > I'd love to have a JakartaEE 9 compatible client but that requires JDK8, so > 2.17 might be a little too soon. > I have some preliminary work on this and plan to be working on it to have > something ready as soon as possible. > Cheers, > Emmanuel > > Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit : > > +1 > > > > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4v...@gmail.com> ha > > scritto: > > > >> Finally! > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <nigro....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 !! > >>> > >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon < > >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >>> > >>>> +1 from me, JDK 11 has been around a couple years now so I think it's > >>> fine. > >>>> It would be nice to be able to use some of the new language features in > >>> the > >>>> broker. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> On 1/12/21 11:35 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > >>>>>> I would like to propose requiring JDK 11 as a minimal requirement > >> on > >>>>>> ActiveMQ Artemis on master, to be released as 2.17 > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> JDK 8 is about end of life, and that would open up better > >>>>>> possibilities on what we write in Artemis. JDK 8 is pretty old at > >>> this > >>>>>> point and we need to move on. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyone would object? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Tim Bish > >>>>> > >>>>> > > -- Clebert Suconic
