Would the plan be to have these first 5.18 releases marked as e.g. alphas to set people's expectations appropriately around it not yet implementing most of JMS 2's new functionality, only some of the new 'simplified' API? Or are the PRs going to pick up on completing [more of] the impl first?
Doesnt Spring 6 require Java 17, and so anything using it would similarly? Is the thinking to change the minimum globally, or e.g just for specific bits using it and then e.g have divergent requirements for build (17+) and runtime (11+ or 17+ depending on what bits you use)? Matt's reply was around having separate release branches/streams for java.jms and jakarta.jms namespace support. I think that might be simplest (and potentially also allowing for different JVM handling between them) at this stage, I'm doing that elsewhere, though there are certainly also tradeoffs to it vs alternatives. You were proposing something different here, can you flesh out your original idea for comparison? Had you implemented something? On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 07:19, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I started to work on ActiveMQ 5.18.x major release preparation. > > Basically, I propose to include (as major changes, in addition of all > others more "minor" changes :)): > - JMS 2.x support (mostly client and first part broker) > - Spring 6 update > - Jakarta namespace support > > I should have the first PRs ready for review very soon. > > I would like to propose a first 5.18.0 in Feb. > > Thoughts ? > Regards > JB
