Moving back to dev list again... Yes we had talked about it before in terms of the client side but it wasn't clear in this thread as your original answer on this thread was "ActiveMQ 5.17.0 will support JMS 2.0." with no caveats or clarification to mention that it would not be full support. Seeing as how this was on the users list that would be a bit misleading to users.
Also, I still don't really know what the point of "client side" support is because you can use the JMS 2.0 jar with ActiveMQ as long as you don't call the new methods. Looking at that code you linked it seems like the new methods (like shared subscription creation) just delegate to the old JMS 1.1 methods such as in https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2/TomEESession.java That behavior seems odd and confusing to me because if a user is calling methods to make a shared subscription or shared durable but it wasn't supported I think it would be much preferable to just throw an error or something vs delegating back. It seems way worse to allow users to call those methods with no errors as a user of the library would (no surprise) be expecting it to provide a shared subscription and it doesn't with no indidication. If someone is writing an application and their business logic is asking for a shared subscription but we don't provide it then that is very different semantics and would most likely break the application so I think that's a pretty bad idea overall so I really don't see why we would want to do that. Other people can chime in but I would be very likely to veto a code change for client support that simply delegates 2.0 methods to 1.1 methods. On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:09 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > By the way, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s what we discussed last year: > start with the client the side, and then move forward for server side. > > What we planned in 5.16.x will be in 5.17.x. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 19 mai 2021 à 06:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit : > > > > 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: us...@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: us...@activemq.apache.org <mailto:us...@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. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
