I think the direction is reasonable. +1

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:37 Christopher Shannon <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Does anyone else have anymore thoughts on this?
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 8:29 AM Christopher Shannon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi JB,
> >
> > That's fine with me to only support Jakarta, as I said in my email
> > that's my preference. I don't really want to support javax at all in
> > 6.x and I'm in favor of dropping it, I just brought it up as an option
> > to see what others think.
> >
> > I think it's reasonable for people to just use the 5.x client because
> > the client has very few dependencies and doesn't change often.
> >
> > I think once 6.3.0 is out we should no longer be backporting anything
> > new to 5.19.x, i.e. no new flags or features or anything. All of that
> > needs to stop. Anything backported going forward should be limited
> > strictly to bug fixes and then further reduce it to only important
> > security fixes at some point. But as soon as we drop it entirely I
> > think the better because it's holding up modernization.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 12:28 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I think we discussed that in the past and the plan (as I recall) was to
> > > stop working on 5.19.x when 6.3.0 will be out.
> > >
> > > I don't think we still need to support the javax client because:
> people can
> > > still use the latest 5.19.x version, even if it's not active, the
> artifacts
> > > are still available for use.
> > >
> > > Personally, I would just announce that 5.19.x is not active anymore,
> and
> > > people have to use 6.x.
> > > If we still provide javax support on 6.x (with another project), users
> will
> > > just stay with it forever.
> > >
> > > I would rather propose the following:
> > > 1. 5.19.x won't be active anymore when 6.3.0 will be out. I'm fine to
> give
> > > more time (up to 6.4.0 for instance), but not javax support in 6.x.
> > > 2. users can still use javax / 5.19.x
> > > 3. focus on the 6.x series
> > >
> > > I think 6.3.0 is pretty close (I'm resuming several working items for
> this
> > > release). Jetty 12 is still needed. Matt is working on it: if we don't
> have
> > > it soon, I will give a hand on that.
> > >
> > > So -1 for javax client, simply.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 7:40 PM Christopher Shannon <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it's time to discuss a timeline to officially end support for
> > > > 5.19.x and all other 5.x releases.
> > > >
> > > > There are many reasons for EOL including:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Security: Because 5.x is still using javax we are unable to
> upgrade
> > > > many important dependencies. This includes Jetty and Spring so every
> > > > release has dependencies shipped with lots of CVEs.
> > > > 2. We are unable to migrate to modern language features in JDK 17+
> > > > (like switch statement) because 5.19.x supports JDK 11.
> > > > 3. It's a lot of extra work to keep having to backport and perform
> > > > releases for 5.x
> > > > 4. It's just time to move on and modernize. Jakarta has been around
> > > > since 2019 at this point.
> > > >
> > > > So we just need to pick a time frame and publish when we will stop
> > > > supporting it. I would prefer to keep the timeframe relatively short,
> > > > maybe 6 months or something.
> > > >
> > > > While I would prefer to only support Jakarta, I know that clients are
> > > > often the last to be upgraded and can take longer. So if it helps
> > > > migration we could easily add a project to generate a javax client in
> > > > 6.x (essentially the opposite of what we did in 5.x). We can just use
> > > > maven to repackage it. Also, if we do that we could change the target
> > > > JDK to version 11 only for the client (we don't use any new language
> > > > features anyways). This would at least allow people with older JDKs
> > > > and on javax to still get updates for the client only while we move
> > > > the broker forward.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
>

Reply via email to