Pardon my ignorance, but why not help TomEE move to ActiveMQ Artemis which already supports JMS 2.0? If I recall correctly one of the reasons that the HornetQ donation was originally accepted was because it provided JMS 2.0 support. This would save work on changes to the 5.x code-base and speed TomEE's transition to Artemis which should happen eventually anyway.
Justin On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > 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. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
