By the way, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s what we discussed last year: start with the client the side, and then move forward for server side.
What we planned in 5.16.x will be in 5.17.x. Regards JB > Le 19 mai 2021 à 06:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit : > > Hi, > > The first step is at least the client support, similar to what have been done > on OpenEJB: > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2 > > <https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/activemq/jms2> > > This allow TomEE to work with ActiveMQ using JMS 2.0. > > So, the proposal is to have a two steps work: > > 1. Support JMS 2.0 client side, it will help in tomee, karaf, etc > 2. Step by step implement server side support > > IMHO, 1 would be good step forward already and it works fine for a while in > tomee. It will already allow us to update the spec. > > Regards > JB > >> Le 18 mai 2021 à 21:09, Christopher Shannon >> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> What exactly are you proposing? Full support would be a tremendous amount >> of work. I started a thread on this already a while back here: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-JMS-2-0-support-in-5-x-going-forward-td4757779.html >> >> My issue here is the lack of clarity. I have no clue what you are proposing >> but it needs to be defined so we don't mislead users by claiming there is >> JMS 2.0 support when there isn't. I listed out possible paths forward in >> that other thread. >> >> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> It’s something that we already discussed and I moved forward on the PR. >>> >>> I propose to move forward on JMS 2.0 support. >>> >>> If the community agree, and tests are fine, I don’t see any issue to >>> support it in 5.17.0 as best effort. >>> >>> Anyway, I will propose the PR, and see when to include it. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:36, Christopher Shannon < >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Since when is JMS 2.0 supposed to be supported by 5.17.0? >>>> >>>> None of the features are implemented on the server side for the new API >>>> calls. This was brought up in a dev discussion that there won't be JMS >>> 2.0 >>>> support on the server side in this release. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> He’s not PMC but committer, so he can help anyway ;) >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:23, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think Romain is still the PMC for TomEE. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:19 >>>>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: Which activeMQ (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 or >>> 3.0 >>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sure I can ask help from Romain about TomEE releases ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> JB >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 17:09, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Jean-Baptiste, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are using ActiveMQ in TomEE context. >>>>>>> So I am just curious about when this version could be included in >>> TomEE >>>>> releases. I will push for that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net >>>>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>> Sent: mardi 18 mai 2021 17:05 >>>>>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <mailto:users@activemq.apache.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Which activeMQ (not Artemis) version will be JMS 2.0 or >>>>> 3.0 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The purpose of the RC is to cut an early release (kind of "cut >>>>> SNAPSHOT") to allow users to test it before the first "official" >>> release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I can propose to you is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. I need couple of weeks to open the PRs and merge it (I’m on JDK11 >>>>> now, identifying/fixing/disabling some tests) 2. When done, I will >>> inform >>>>> you on the mailing list allowing you to test using the SNAPSHOTs >>>>> (5.17.0-SNAPSHOT) 3. If I don’t see any blocker on SNAPSHOT, then I will >>>>> move forward on 5.17.0 release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does it sound good to you ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:59, Simon Billingsley >>>>> <simon.billings...@matrixx.com.INVALID> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the details information. >>>>>>>> I am interested in the Log4J 2 upgrade. >>>>>>>> How long does the release take after the RC process normally? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Simon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18 May 2021, at 15:53, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto: >>> j...@nanthrax.net >>>>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net><mailto: >>> j...@nanthrax.net >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi François, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ActiveMQ 5.17.0 will support JMS 2.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Basically, what I’m planning for ActiveMQ 5.17.0: >>>>>>>> - JDK11 build >>>>>>>> - Spring 5 >>>>>>>> - Log4j2 >>>>>>>> - JMS 2.0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> About date target, I’m working on JDK11 build now and the other PRs >>>>> will follow. I would like to submit a first 5.17 RC end of June. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 18 mai 2021 à 16:48, COURTAULT Francois < >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> <mailto: >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com>><mailto: >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com> <mailto: >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com <mailto: >>>>> francois.courta...@thalesgroup.com>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question to be answered is in the Subject. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >
