Note that the related PR has just been merged, so the main branch now
requires Java 11+ to build and run.
You may see failures if you are still building with < 11 in any envs.
It does have an enforcer plugin run to verify the Java version used,
so it is fairly clear on why the build fails if you
I didnt do anything with docker generation, I've never used those bits
so it hadnt occurred to me anything might be needed there.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 21:25, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> I will do some tests with the integration tests and merge that. Ok ?
>
>
> Also: did you check the docker
I will do some tests with the integration tests and merge that. Ok ?
Also: did you check the docker generation ? If lot leave it with me.
(Just chatting now as I’m not in front of a computer until tomorrow )
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> As before but now 9 months
As before but now 9 months since proposal / 2.19.0 has also shipped /
Java 17 released over a month ago.
Robbie
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 13:02, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I have raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3420 and
> created a related PR at
>
I have raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3420 and
created a related PR at
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3696 for this.
I think it is time to move on requiring Java 11 for future releases,
and just after a release is a great time to get going on it.
It has now
if not 2.17, we could postpone it to 2.18... and then branch 2.17 into 2.17.x.
@Ryan Yeats: on your question, users requiring core client could stay
on such a 2.17.x branch.. while the broker could move into 2.18, 2.19,
while 2.17.x would stay on JDK 8.
So clients would have the option to move
This would make clients have to upgrade to java 11 as well or switch to
something other than the artemis core client correct?
Ryan Yeats
On 1/15/21, 12:50 PM, "Emmanuel Hugonnet" wrote:
While I would love to say yes (given I started to move the build to JDK11),
i have a concern about
While I would love to say yes (given I started to move the build to JDK11), i
have a concern about this move coming soon.
I'd love to have a JakartaEE 9 compatible client but that requires JDK8, so
2.17 might be a little too soon.
I have some preliminary work on this and plan to be working on it
+1
Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret ha
scritto:
> Finally!
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro
> wrote:
>
> > +1 !!
> >
> > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > +1 from
Finally!
+1
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro wrote:
> +1 !!
>
> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > +1 from me, JDK 11 has been around a couple years now so I think it's
> fine.
> >
> > It would be
+1 !!
Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> +1 from me, JDK 11 has been around a couple years now so I think it's fine.
>
> It would be nice to be able to use some of the new language features in the
> broker.
>
> On Thu,
+1 from me, JDK 11 has been around a couple years now so I think it's fine.
It would be nice to be able to use some of the new language features in the
broker.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 1/12/21 11:35 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > I would like to propose
On 1/12/21 11:35 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
I would like to propose requiring JDK 11 as a minimal requirement on
ActiveMQ Artemis on master, to be released as 2.17
+1
JDK 8 is about end of life, and that would open up better
possibilities on what we write in Artemis. JDK 8 is pretty old at
It may be a little surprising to users to have the minimum Java version
bumped in a minor release, but there is precedent for such a move. From
ActiveMQ 5.15.9 to 5.15.10 the minimum Java version was bumped to 8. Most
users are probably already on 11+ so I'm OK with it.
Justin
On Tue, Jan 12,
+1 for me.
Regards
JB
> Le 14 janv. 2021 à 18:45, Clebert Suconic a écrit
> :
>
> Can I assume Lazy Consensus and move ahead on requiring JDK 11 as a
> minimal requirement to build and run Artemis and its clients?
>
>
> Users can always use older versions if they still need JDK 8.
>
> On
Can I assume Lazy Consensus and move ahead on requiring JDK 11 as a
minimal requirement to build and run Artemis and its clients?
Users can always use older versions if they still need JDK 8.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:35 AM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
>
> I would like to propose requiring JDK 11
16 matches
Mail list logo
