Still +1 I agree it's time to end support for 5.19.x. Feb 2027 is fine with me.
With an app server background, I feel it's easier with ActiveMQ because it does not embed applications and migrating from javax to jakarta isn't a big thing. Maybe some plugins if users have custom plugins but that's it. Using ActiveMQ embedded will require migration of course. The protocol is stable, so users can use either the javax/jakarta client. The javax client will work just fine. I'd also agree with Chris, no matter how long you give, it will always be too short because some users don't move until the deadline approaches. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:26 PM Christopher Shannon < [email protected]> wrote: > Ok sounds JB, I agree we can send out an email announcement and update > the website for 5.19.x for users as well. > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:14 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yeah, agree with the plan, it looks good. > > > > I would suggest also to update the website when we will do the "end of > > active" announcement (I will try to resume the effort on the website > > too :)). > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 5:55 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > +1 Good call, I think that would cover the only realistic scenario > we’d want to go back and make sensible release of an inactive release > stream. > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > 1. Announce Feb 28th 2027 end of active for 5.19.x > > > 2. Leave ourselves an option to do for emergency (ie Log4shell, > OpenWire security vulnerability, etc) > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2026, at 10:41 AM, Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, if we do announce the 6 month thing, we could still leave open > > > > the option for "emergency" releases. We have done that in the past, I > > > > just wouldn't want to promise anything or have anyone count on more > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 10:21 AM Christopher Shannon > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I am ok with 4-6 months but am -1 on doing something longer and I > plan > > > >> to -1 any releases after that. > > > >> > > > >> At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much time we give > because > > > >> whatever the timeline is, some people will just wait until the last > > > >> second to do the work to upgrade so we need to cut it off. > > > >> > > > >> JDK 17 has been out for 5 years and Jakarta has been out for longer, > > > >> It's more than past time to move on. > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 3:03 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> I agree it is a good time to announce a planned end of ‘active’ > status to 5.19.x > > > >>> > > > >>> As you mentioned, this opens up the ability to start using JDK 17 > features and beyond. > > > >>> (Virtual Threads and the JAAS change is really going to drive us > to a JDK 25 baseline runtime anyway) > > > >>> > > > >>> As far as timeframe, end of year would put it at 4mos. Going up to > 6 mos may be something to consider (ie Feb 28 2027). > > > >>> > > > >>> In this thread (or another), JB mentioned perhaps doing a longer > 5.19.x active status since this will be the last of the javax.jms supported > client to balance not releasing a javax.jms client in the 6.x tree. Per the > Azul report ~ 38% of enterprises still running JDK 8 and 11 (ref: > https://keyholesoftware.com/java-trends-2026/) > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Matt > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Aug 21, 2026, at 7:31 AM, Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It sounds like everyone is on the same page to say that 5.19.x is > not > > > >>>> active anymore going forward, so I think we can go ahead and > announce > > > >>>> that and update the website, etc. This also means it should be > safe to > > > >>>> start using JDK 17 features finally, like updated switch > statements or > > > >>>> intanceof pattern matching as we won't be backporting. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Because our web site still says that 5.19.x is stable and we > haven't > > > >>>> actually announced that 5.19.x will stop being supported, I think > it > > > >>>> makes sense to provide a short period of time for > important/security > > > >>>> updates still. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm proposing until the end of the year for 5.19.x. I think we > could > > > >>>> announce that we will provide patch releases for 5.19.x that > include > > > >>>> major bug fixes (should be rare or non-existent) and security > fixes > > > >>>> (including dependency updates) until Dec 31st, 2026 and then we > will > > > >>>> cut it off. This shouldn't be a lot of work as we'd only be > > > >>>> backporting limited stuff and I wouldn't expect many releases but > that > > > >>>> also just depends on security reports. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Ultimately, we just have to cut it off at some point because if > you > > > >>>> don't give a deadline then some people just won't ever upgrade. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Chris > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 4:35 PM Christopher Shannon > > > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So now that 6.3.x is out are we good to stop supporting 5.19.x? I > > > >>>>> personally have no desire to release anymore versions and think > > > >>>>> we can cut it off. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Also, I think 6.2.9 will be the last of the 6.2.x series, users > can > > > >>>>> move to 6.3.x going forward. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 7:57 AM Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi all, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Back from vacation, hopefully not to late for feedback. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks Chris for bringing the discussion up. I agree that we > should now > > > >>>>>> favor 6.x and set the EOL date for 5.x > > > >>>>>> As JB mentioned, I don't think there is a need to shade the > client jar to > > > >>>>>> bring it to javax namespace. The client is thin and > selfcontained pretty > > > >>>>>> much and there aren't any CVEs usually affecting it directly. > So using an > > > >>>>>> old javax client is fine with me. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> So I'm +1 as well > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hopefully that should give contributors some cycles to work on > the project > > > >>>>>> features as opposed to backporting and doing releases on old > versions. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > >>>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > >>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 11:03 PM Jamie G. < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 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 > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > >
