You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> on 2021/08/17 12:02:21 UTC
Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimal JDK on ActiveMQ Artemis...
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>.
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