You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2021/01/12 16:35:01 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
I would like to propose requiring JDK 11 as a minimal requirement on
ActiveMQ Artemis on master, to be released as 2.17
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 this
point and we need to move on.
Anyone would object?
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
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, 2021 at 10:42 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would like to propose requiring JDK 11 as a minimal requirement on
> ActiveMQ Artemis on master, to be released as 2.17
>
>
> 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 this
> point and we need to move on.
>
>
>
> Anyone would object?
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Ryan Yeats <ry...@octoconsulting.com>.
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" <eh...@redhat.com> wrote:
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 to have something ready as soon as possible.
Cheers,
Emmanuel
Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> +1
>
> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Finally!
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 !!
>>>
>>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
>>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>> this
>>>>>> point and we need to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone would object?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>>
>>>>>
[Octo | Emerging Technology. Human Impact.]<https://www.octoconsulting.com/>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 do try on a lower
version.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 12:30, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 been 7 months since the original proposal and discussion.
> > > > 2.17.0 and 2.18.0 have both gone out. Java 17 is almost ready (RC2 due
> > > > later this week, release due 4 weeks today).
> > > >
> > > > Robbie
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 23:57, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 to JDK 11, or stay on JDK 8
> > > > > with 2.17.x... same as you would with any other library. for instance
> > > > > AMQP clients such as the ones from qpid would soon (if not already )
> > > > > move towards JDK 11+.
> > > > >
> > > > > How that sounds?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:50 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <eh...@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 to
> > > have something ready as soon as possible.
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Emmanuel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com>
> > > ha
> > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Finally!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> +1
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <
> > > nigro.fra@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> +1 !!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > > >>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <
> > > tabish121@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> 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
> > > > > > >>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>> point and we need to move on.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Anyone would object?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> Tim Bish
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 been 7 months since the original proposal and discussion.
> > > 2.17.0 and 2.18.0 have both gone out. Java 17 is almost ready (RC2 due
> > > later this week, release due 4 weeks today).
> > >
> > > Robbie
> > >
> > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 23:57, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 to JDK 11, or stay on JDK 8
> > > > with 2.17.x... same as you would with any other library. for instance
> > > > AMQP clients such as the ones from qpid would soon (if not already )
> > > > move towards JDK 11+.
> > > >
> > > > How that sounds?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:50 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <eh...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 to
> > have something ready as soon as possible.
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Emmanuel
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com>
> > ha
> > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Finally!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +1
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <
> > nigro.fra@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> +1 !!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <
> > tabish121@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> 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
> > > > > >>> this
> > > > > >>>>>> point and we need to move on.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Anyone would object?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>> Tim Bish
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
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 <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 been 7 months since the original proposal and discussion.
> > 2.17.0 and 2.18.0 have both gone out. Java 17 is almost ready (RC2 due
> > later this week, release due 4 weeks today).
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 23:57, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 to JDK 11, or stay on JDK 8
> > > with 2.17.x... same as you would with any other library. for instance
> > > AMQP clients such as the ones from qpid would soon (if not already )
> > > move towards JDK 11+.
> > >
> > > How that sounds?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:50 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <eh...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 to
> have something ready as soon as possible.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Emmanuel
> > > >
> > > > Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com>
> ha
> > > > > scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Finally!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <
> nigro.fra@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> +1 !!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > > > >>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <
> tabish121@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> 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
> > > > >>> this
> > > > >>>>>> point and we need to move on.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Anyone would object?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Tim Bish
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 been 7 months since the original proposal and discussion.
> 2.17.0 and 2.18.0 have both gone out. Java 17 is almost ready (RC2 due
> later this week, release due 4 weeks today).
>
> Robbie
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 23:57, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 to JDK 11, or stay on JDK 8
> > with 2.17.x... same as you would with any other library. for instance
> > AMQP clients such as the ones from qpid would soon (if not already )
> > move towards JDK 11+.
> >
> > How that sounds?
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:50 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <eh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 to have something ready as soon as possible.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com> ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > >
> > > >> Finally!
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> +1 !!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > > >>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>> 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
> > > >>> this
> > > >>>>>> point and we need to move on.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Anyone would object?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Tim Bish
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 been 7 months since the original proposal and discussion.
2.17.0 and 2.18.0 have both gone out. Java 17 is almost ready (RC2 due
later this week, release due 4 weeks today).
Robbie
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 23:57, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 to JDK 11, or stay on JDK 8
> with 2.17.x... same as you would with any other library. for instance
> AMQP clients such as the ones from qpid would soon (if not already )
> move towards JDK 11+.
>
> How that sounds?
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:50 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <eh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 to have something ready as soon as possible.
> > Cheers,
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com> ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > >> Finally!
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1 !!
> > >>>
> > >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > >>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>> 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
> > >>> this
> > >>>>>> point and we need to move on.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Anyone would object?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Tim Bish
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
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 to JDK 11, or stay on JDK 8
with 2.17.x... same as you would with any other library. for instance
AMQP clients such as the ones from qpid would soon (if not already )
move towards JDK 11+.
How that sounds?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:50 PM Emmanuel Hugonnet <eh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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 to have something ready as soon as possible.
> Cheers,
> Emmanuel
>
> Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> > +1
> >
> > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> >> Finally!
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 !!
> >>>
> >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> >>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>> this
> >>>>>> point and we need to move on.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyone would object?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Tim Bish
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Emmanuel Hugonnet <eh...@redhat.com>.
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 to have something ready as soon as possible.
Cheers,
Emmanuel
Le 15/01/2021 à 10:41, Domenico Francesco Bruscino a écrit :
> +1
>
> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Finally!
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 !!
>>>
>>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
>>> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>> this
>>>>>> point and we need to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone would object?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Domenico Francesco Bruscino <br...@gmail.com>.
+1
Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret <h4...@gmail.com> ha
scritto:
> Finally!
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 !!
> >
> > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > this
> > > > > point and we need to move on.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone would object?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tim Bish
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Havret <h4...@gmail.com>.
Finally!
+1
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 !!
>
> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> this
> > > > point and we need to move on.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyone would object?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tim Bish
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>.
+1 !!
Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@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, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 this
> > > point and we need to move on.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone would object?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
+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 <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 this
> > point and we need to move on.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone would object?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
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 this
> point and we need to move on.
>
>
>
> Anyone would object?
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Tim Bish
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
+1 for me.
Regards
JB
> Le 14 janv. 2021 à 18:45, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> 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 Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:35 AM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to propose requiring JDK 11 as a minimal requirement on
>> ActiveMQ Artemis on master, to be released as 2.17
>>
>>
>> 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 this
>> point and we need to move on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone would object?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
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
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to propose requiring JDK 11 as a minimal requirement on
> ActiveMQ Artemis on master, to be released as 2.17
>
>
> 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 this
> point and we need to move on.
>
>
>
> Anyone would object?
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic