Hi Mike, Anyway, as it’s requested by our users, we have to move forward about that. That’s the JMS 2.0 imps part but my main concern is also the dependency. For instance, camel-jms is JMS 2.0 and running in spring-boot or karaf with ActiveMQ brings JMS 1.1 and 2.0 dependencies in the same runtime.
I hear Chris and your points, thanks for that. So I propose to move forward with a first PR. I will start by implementing some OperationNotSupportedException in the new methods, and then adding better support step by step. Regards JB > Le 22 mai 2021 à 01:42, Michael André Pearce > <michael.andre.pea...@icloud.com.INVALID> a écrit : > > > I would agree this defiantly should not be done client side, the feature > needs to be fully and properly implemented broker side. > > I've been reviewing the so called JMS2 client at TomEE, and there are just so > many spec issues with the implementation, like some of those mentioned by > Chris, theres actually quite a few nasty surprises people will get tbh, its > asking for trouble. > > As well I hope that any implementation done, is not just for openwire, but > works with the AMQP 1.0 connections that many users are now adopting. > > Like wise i hope that if there's a commitment to add the feature, that > there's a commitment to ensure the openwire clients are updated not just the > Java one..... > > I know work has gone into properly supporting JMS 2.0 semantics to NMS for > AMQP which fully works with Artemis, theres been some bugs found before its > released, but the point being people will expect that the open wire is > supported, or if not at least the AMQP implementation in the ActiveMQ broker > also properly implemented. > > I would def not be providing a positive vote in a release vote for the > current proposal, of just doing some client hack to make it look like, but > not meet JMS 2.0 spec, its asking for issues. > > Thanks > Mike > > > > On 19 May 2021 at 16:09, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/19/21 6:17 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: >>> 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 >>> >>> <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. >> >> I'd have to agree here, the client shouldn't do the wrong thing just to >> pretend that it did something. If it can't do it then it should fail so >> that people know what the limitations are, and also the limitations >> should be clearly and explicitly documented where people can find it. >> >> >>> >>> 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>< >>>> 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 <mailto: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 >>>> >>>> <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 >>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:05 >>>>>>>>>>> To: us...@activemq.apache.org <mailto: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 >>>>>>> <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>>><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 >>>>>>>>> <mailto:francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question to be answered is in the Subject. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Tim Bish >>
