I didnt do anything with docker generation, I've never used those bits so it hadnt occurred to me anything might be needed there.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 21:25, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I will do some tests with the integration tests and merge that. Ok ? > > > Also: did you check the docker generation ? If lot leave it with me. > (Just chatting now as I’m not in front of a computer until tomorrow ) > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > As before but now 9 months since proposal / 2.19.0 has also shipped / > > Java 17 released over a month ago. > > > > Robbie > > > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 13:02, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > I have raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3420 and > > > created a related PR at > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3696 for this. > > > > > > I think it is time to move on requiring Java 11 for future releases, > > > and just after a release is a great time to get going on it. > > > > > > It has now been 7 months since the original proposal and discussion. > > > 2.17.0 and 2.18.0 have both gone out. Java 17 is almost ready (RC2 due > > > later this week, release due 4 weeks today). > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 23:57, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
