I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0 release:
This was a large release overall with many improvements, and I'm proud
of what we accomplished on this release. Thanks for all who
contributed to this release by both raising JIRAs or contributing
changes:
* Improvements on the
Agree. I'll also note that projects that support both namespaces and use a
classifier like "-jakarta" are very hard to use if you want the "-jakarta"
version.
We did that in TomEE, Johnzon, OpenWebBeans, etc. and the problem is the maven
pom is basically unusable to jakarta users. Those
If we do update the website for naming - I recommend we just call refer to
"ActiveMQ Classic" as an alias. For example (totally made up), "We have 2
brokers, ActiveMQ (aka ActiveMQ Classic) and ActiveMQ Artemis".
Art
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:19 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> I agree about
I agree and that's ActiveMQ 5.x stays with javax.jms and ActiveMQ 6.x
changes to jakarta.jms.
So we are fully aligned and it shows that ActiveMQ 6.x is cleaner.
If users want to still use javax.jms then they will use ActiveMQ 5.x,
if they want to use jakarta.jms, they will use ActiveMQ 6.x.
It's
In ActiveMQ 5.x the broker itself uses all the JMS messages etc on the
broker side and also uses the same classes as the client for various
stuff, so it has to be fully converted so you can use broker + client
in the same application/test without resorting to containers etc. The
5.x javax broker
Hi,
The main change is JDK17 required by the update to Spring 6.x, this is
actually the update that implies a new version (ActiveMQ is coupled to
Spring right now).
About jakarta, even on Artemis, I guess you had an impact for the
users as you moved client from javax.jms to jakarta.jms, right ?
I don't have a deep familiarity with the internals here so some of the
fundamentals behind the changes aren't clear to me.
Is the move to JDK 17 prompted by the fact that Spring 6 requires it? How
tightly is "Classic" coupled with Spring?
Is the coupling with Spring also why the code-base is
Huge +1
Have just worked through a few Jakarta changes and it is a lot of things you
need to change.
Sent from my pressure cooker.
> On Sep 11, 2023, at 22:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree and it's actually something we likely discussed while ago
> related to renaming
yep, no need for a vote (or even really lazy consensus I'd say) given
the discussion thus far
On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 15:09, Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>
> Yeah I think lazy consensus is fine here if no major objections come up and
> we can make the change.
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:21 AM
Yeah I think lazy consensus is fine here if no major objections come up and
we can make the change.
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> I agree about naming. Let's use "Classic" on the index.html page, but
> not necessary on the "component"/subpage (here we can use
I agree about naming. Let's use "Classic" on the index.html page, but
not necessary on the "component"/subpage (here we can use ActiveMQ as
shortcut).
About the version, it seems we are heading to a consensus. Let's wait
an additional 24 hours, then, if there are no objections, I will use
I am ok with whatever makes sense to distinguish the brokers. If people are
starting to use "classic" that is fine. As I previously said I don't think
we necessarily need to make the naming discussion as part of the versioning
discussion.
I am planning to leave this thread open for another day or
+1
Thanks
Jon
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 2:27 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> That makes lot of sense to me ! We will have:
>
> - ActiveMQ 5.18.x
> - ActiveMQ 6.x.x
> - ActiveMQ 7.x.x
> - ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x
> - ActiveMQ Artemis 3.x
>
> So, I propose to have two "spaces" on website:
>
Same, when I have to mention both in the same discussion, I tend to add
"classic" for ActiveMQ to make sure there is no confusion with Artemis.
But that's basically it.
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:43 AM Arthur Naseef
+1 (Binding)
Best
Mike
On 2023/09/11 09:11:12 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:40 PM Havret wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have put together another release of activemq-nms-api. Please review it
> > and vote accordingly.
> >
> > This
15 matches
Mail list logo
