Yep, I can certainly see it is the far easier approach, and removing
it and common from 7.x should make things fairly simple in terms of
having the two versions working in a JVM going forward (e.g for
verification testing).

Robbie

On 10 January 2017 at 11:48, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> so doing so at this point might not outweigh the effort required.
>
> That's really what triggered this train of thought.  We'd like to separate
> out the client and the broker, however at this point it its life the 0-x
> client is really only receiving maintenance changes, and they are anyway
> being applied to the 6.1.x branch (and 6.0.x branch).  As such I think it
> might be easier all round if we just say that the 7.x broker is verified
> against the 6.1.x client.  And for 7.0.x we can get rid of the client (and
> common) from the Qpid for Java release.
>
> -- Rob
>
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 12:38, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd maybe suggest splitting the 0-x client out on its own instead
>> rather than just leaving it as part of 6.1.x, though thats not
>> necessarily as simple as it sounds which is likely why it hasn't been
>> done already, so doing so at this point might not outweigh the effort
>> required.
>>
>> On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > +1 To removing Java 7 support in the Broker for Java and the JMS client.
>> >
>> > On the AMQP 0-x JMS client my inclination is to say that we actually
>> remove
>> > this client from future feature releases.  Maintenance releases on the
>> > 6.1.x branch will continue to support Java 7 (and 8, of course), but
>> going
>> > forward the AMQP 1.0 JMS client should be the only supported JMS library.
>> > (Since I don't think anyone is actually planning on adding any features
>> to
>> > the 0-x client, I don't think this is actually as big a deal as it might
>> > initially sound - we'd verify the compatibility between the 7.0 Broker
>> and
>> > the v6.x AMQP 0-x JMS client, of course)
>> >
>> > -- Rob
>> >
>> > On 10 January 2017 at 10:08, Lorenz Quack <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> The next Qpid Broker for Java is probably going to be 7.0 (i.e., a major
>> >> release) so now is as good a time as any.
>> >>
>> >> Some dates for reference [1]:
>> >> Java Version    First Release    End of Public Updates
>> >> 7                Jul 2011            Apr 2015
>> >> 8                Mar 2014            Sep 2017 or later
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 09/01/17 22:28, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I'd like to propose dropping support for Java 7 in the broker and both
>> >>> JMS clients in their next significant new releases.
>> >>>
>> >>> Almost a year ago, there was a proposal around preparing to end
>> >>> support for Java 7 in the broker and AMQP 0-x JMS client, with the the
>> >>> idea of doing a ~Q3 2016 major release in which the broker required
>> >>> Java 8, followed by a minor follow-up release in 2017 that then
>> >>> dropped support for the client. I believe both still currently retain
>> >>> support for Java 7.
>> >>>
>> >>> I agreed with the proposal and suggested something similar made sense
>> >>> for the AMQP 1.0 JMS client, and I think it is time we made that
>> >>> change. I think it would be appropriate to do so in concert with the
>> >>> 0.20.0 release the client is now ready for, and plan to do so unless
>> >>> convinced otherwise.
>> >>>
>> >>> While on the Java 7 subject: I'm a little more neutral about Proton-J,
>> >>> and wouldn't be that opposed to it continuing to for a bit longer,
>> >>> although probably not all that long, as the majority of builds I know
>> >>> of personally that depend on it already require Java 8, some doing so
>> >>> before Proton even dropped its Java 6 support in 2015 (after Java 7
>> >>> went EOL).
>> >>>
>> >>> Robbie
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to