At this point I think we should just move all JMS 2.0 items to 5.18.0 and split it up. It's just a version number and 5.17.0 is long overdue. There's probably still going to be more back and forth on JMS 2.0 even after the next review. 5.18.0 can go out whenever it's ready, it doesn't have to wait years.
A roadmap could be something like: -5.17.0 would include requiring JDK 11, log4j2 upgrade, spring 5.3, etc. -5.18.0 could include JMS 2.0 client implementation (except things not possible like shared subs) plus the Jakarta messaging API updates (can support Jakarta messaging and JMS 2.0 as two different modules like Artemis did). -5.19.0 could work on targeting more broker side JMS 2.0 support (using virtual destinations for shared subs, etc). On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi, > > If Matt is comfortable with the JMS2 change, maybe it is worth > considering quickly ? > > My main point is that it has been discussed on the mailing list and it > seems we had a consensus to include the first JMS2 round in 5.17.0. We > can always change the plan, but again, I would at least include a > quick documentation how to use JMS2 with ActiveMQ client. > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:42 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Re: AMQ-7309 and PR-729 > > > > Robbie’s latest review caught an in-flight WIP. I had not yet requested > re-review. I am in the process verifying the feasibility of supporting > disableMessageID support within the wider range of unit tests. I will > request re-reviews once the additional tests and clean-ups are pushed > through. > > > > There have been a number of good suggestions in the first pass, and > almost all of those have already been implemented. I don’t see any reason > this won’t be the case for the next pass. > > > > Thanks, > > Matt Pavlovich > > > > > On Feb 21, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Finally doing a 5.17.0 release sounds good. > > > > > > That said, I dont personally think > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/729 is ready for inclusion in > > > a release though, even with an '-rc1' adorned version number > > > previously suggested but apparently no longer planned, since even as a > > > 'first phase' it is surprisingly incomplete, adding some of the JMS 2 > > > 'simplified API' but not even doing much of the basic JMS 1.1 level > > > functionality within it, like setting a MessageListener on a > > > JMSConsumer, or creating a durable subscriber (non-shared), or > > > JMSContext's acknowledge() method for doing client-ack (presumably the > > > message method works though), etc. > > > > > > It also just seems very odd to even think about just *starting* to > > > including stuff like that on main within a couple days of intending to > > > do a release thats nearing being *years* in the making, and getting > > > describe to users as '2-3 weeks' for way over a year now, including > > > multiple times in the last few months. > > > > > > For me, the most obvious idea at this point would actually be for > > > 5.17.x to be branched and proceed without this. Theres a load of stuff > > > in it already that is long overdue like the JDK11 build etc. I would > > > go so far as to say the prior API jar change from early November > > > (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/682) should also be > > > effectively reverted, it makes no sense to me on its own. Then all of > > > this stuff then worked on towards a 5.18.x release that actually > > > implements and tests things to a reasonable level thats less likely to > > > see even trivial use cases fail to work. > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 04:55, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi guys, > > >> > > >> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing almost all unit > > >> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the > > >> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be good to be > > >> merged. I will do that today. > > >> > > >> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using jetty modules > > >> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45. > > >> > > >> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones from Matt. @Matt > > >> can you please ping me on slack to check together the status of the > > >> PRs ? > > >> > > >> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote this Thursday if > > >> there are no objections. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> JB > > >
