Ok. But in that case, can we target SMX 7 with full JMS 2 support ? I think it’s important to have a kind of roadmap.
So let’s use 6.x for incremental work and 7 when complete (without strong commitment on date). Regards JB Le lun. 4 déc. 2023 à 13:18, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : > I don't see how we can release shared subscription support for 6.1.0 at > this point. We haven't even come up with a plan of how we are going to > implement it. There's multiple ways it could be done and probably requires > protocol changes. We have to decide how much work is done by the broker and > where. > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 2:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > I think it would better to complete JMS 2 in 6.1.0 including shared topic > > subscriptions. > > We already did 6.0.x with partial JMS 2 support, which is so so from user > > perspective. > > > > I would prefer to wait few weeks for 6.1.0 to give us time to complete > JMS > > 2. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > Le lun. 4 déc. 2023 à 07:52, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > > Hey JB -- > > > > > > These JMS 2.0 features are planned for v6.1.0: > > > > > > AMQ-8464 PR #1046 6.1.0, 5.18.x JMSConsumer .receiveBody(Class) > methods > > > AMQ-8320 PR #982 6.1.0, 5.18.x Delivery Delay Support for Message > > > DeliveryDelay feature > > > AMQ-8324 PR #1045 6.1.0, 5.18.x JMSProducer features Completion > Listener > > > async send support > > > > > > This would just leave Shared Topic Subscriptions, which is currently > > > planned for v6.2.0. > > > > > > AMQ-8323 6.2.0, 5.18.x Shared Topic Consumer Multi-consumer > > (queue-like) > > > consuming from topic subscriptions > > > > > > Reference: > > > https://activemq.apache.org/jms2 > > > > > > I think this would work well, since we have Virtual Topic support > (which > > > is better anyway). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2023, at 11:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > I think it's really important to focus on JMS 2 complete impl for > > 6.1.0. > > > > That's the most important. > > > > > > > > I started to work on some impl, a couple are a little longer to impl, > > > > require tests etc. > > > > I don't think early January is reasonable. I would rather try at the > > > > end of January. > > > > > > > > I would rather: > > > > 1. Focus on 6.0.2 for fixes (I'm preparing 5.18.x/5.17.x too as they > > > > include fixes as well) > > > > 2. Focus on 6.1.0 to complete JMS 2.x support. That's probably the > > > > most important (honestly, I'm not a big fan of JMS 2.x support in > > > > ActiveMQ 6.0.x, it could be confusing for users). > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 4:10 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> All- > > > >> > > > >> I’ve started organizing some JIRAs for v6.1.0. I’m thinking > > > early-January for release target timeframe. > > > >> > > > >> - Additional JMS 2.0 impls > > > >> - New features for observability > > > >> - Code base modernization > > > >> > > > >> Thanks! > > > >> Matt Pavlovich > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
