Matt, My main concern with that is with new -javax modules everyone has to change to new GAV and then they have to change GAV again if we drop the javax.
But this might just be the way it is and users will have to make changes to their build that is more than just a version change. On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 2:17 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Christopher- > > After taking yesterday to get most of the way through the jakarta > conversion, I think we can go without the version gap. > > I think option #1 gives us the best approach. After a period of time we > can just ‘drop’ the javax modules and not have to cause users to change > anything else back to have clean GAV coordinates. > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On Mar 30, 2023, at 3:49 PM, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Matt for bringing this up. We definitely need to figure out a path > > forward as there is a lot of confusion about this still and users are > > getting bit by it when trying to upgrade to Spring 6 and Spring boot 3. > > > > Ultimately I think we will need to support both javax and jakarta for > quite > > a while because while some users are going to want to use newer > > technologies that require jakarta (like Spring 6 ) others will be happy > to > > stay on the old APIs for a while. So the question becomes what is the > best > > way to do that. I do think that some sort of repackaging is probably the > > way to go like we did for the client but to do it for all the relevant > > modules and release both. We can keep 5.18.x as a long running branch to > > back port but it would still be nice if the latest worked for either API > > (ie 5.19.x). I'm thinking more about it and we can probably just do it in > > 5.19.x and don't need a gap version. > > > > I can see 3 ways to release both: > > > > *1) Create duplicate modules (like we did with the client for jakarta in > > 5.18.x). *This works but means a lot of extra modules to maintain but is > > probably the most flexible as you can do custom things in each module > > easily. We could create BOM files for people to use to import the right > > things to keep things consistent. > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId> > > <artifactId>activemq-broker-javax</artifactId> > > <version>5.19.0</version> > > </dependency> > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId> > > <artifactId>activemq-broker-jakarta</artifactId> > > <version>5.19.0</version> > > </dependency> > > > > *2) Don't add new modules, just keep the same ones but have each module > > build 2 jars using classifiers. *We could just have each module build 2 > > jars and repackage. My primary concern about sharing the same module for > > both APIs would be if the Jakarta API becomes different enough that > > repackaging doesn't work due to changes between it and javax but we might > > still be able to make this work by having each classified jar only pull > in > > certain things. > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId> > > <artifactId>activemq-broker</artifactId> > > <version>5.19.0</version> > > <classifier>javax</classifier> > > </dependency> > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId> > > <artifactId>activemq-broker</artifactId> > > <version>5.19.0</version> > > <classifier>jakarta</classifier> > > </dependency> > > > > *3) Just build with a different version (this is what Guava does with jre > > and android). *This is probably the most annoying as you would need to > > re-package and then I guess use a different version when building. > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId> > > <artifactId>activemq-broker</artifactId> > > <version>5.19.0-javax</version> > > </dependency> > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId> > > <artifactId>activemq-broker</artifactId> > > <version>5.19.0-jakarta</version> > > </dependency> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 4:06 PM Endre Stølsvik <en...@stolsvik.com> > wrote: > > > >> From a lurker position here, I just wanted to point out that Jetty is > >> evidently making a version 12 which will support both javax. and > jakarta. > >> in the same server. > >> https://www.eclipse.org/jetty/download.php > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Endre > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 9:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I agree with the plan but why not keep 5.19.0-SNAPSHOT on main ? > >>> We have the activemq-5.18.x branch already that could be LTS where we > >>> keep javax namespace. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:54 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hello All- > >>>> > >>>> I started building a jakarta-based broker for ActiveMQ 5.x and propose > >>> the following steps to manage the change. > >>>> > >>>> Background: > >>>> > >>>> Jakarta support in ActiveMQ 5.x is going to pull in JDK 17, Spring 6, > >>> Jakarta EE 9, Servlet 5.x, and Jetty 11. That is quite a bit of change, > >> and > >>> I suggest we leave a ‘gap version’ in case we need to make any > >> incremental > >>> updates to 5.18.x series along the way. > >>>> > >>>> 1. Rename main to 5.20.0-SNAPSHOT > >>>> 2. Commit broker-related jakarta, servlet, jetty, spring, etc changes > >> to > >>> main > >>>> 3. Create new ‘-javax’ broker modules to support a > >>> apache-activemq-javax-5.20.0-bin.tar.gz package using re-packaging of > the > >>> jakarta artifacts. > >>>> 4. Leave 5.19.x as a ‘gap version’ in case it is needed for 5.18.x > >>> changes > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Matt Pavlovich > >>> > >> > >
