You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to gitbox@activemq.apache.org by "jbertram (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2025/10/23 22:01:14 UTC

[PR] Clarify supported JVMs for Artemis [activemq-website]

jbertram opened a new pull request, #162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/162

   (no comment)


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [PR] Clarify supported JVMs for Artemis [activemq-website]

Posted by "gemmellr (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

gemmellr commented on PR #162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/162#issuecomment-3443578990

I dont really want to be specifying _just_ LTS releases when it can/should/does work on others, and I think specifying lots of versions just gets overly verbose. Especially when it typically seems like most people dont read this stuff anyway, given the questions we get any time the minimum changes, because they just 'saw new version, used it' (often automated now too). In general I think we should just strive to work on everything available beyond the specified minimum at the time of release. As of the next release we will do so once again, and we should keep it that way.

You dont need to add anything to artemis.profile (or otherwise specify it) on 23+ if you dont turn on the audit logging. The older distributions runs out of the box on 23+. Its embedded usage that presents the main issue as its typical people dont have the config that disables it.

--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [PR] Clarify supported JVMs for Artemis [activemq-website]

Posted by "jbertram (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

jbertram commented on PR #162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/162#issuecomment-3443310805

   My idea here was to provide general guidance for the out-of-the-box experience. In other words, to answer the question, "What versions of Java can I use this with by default with no problems?" That said, I think it should not include 23 since that requires adding `java.security.manager=allow` to `artemis.profile`.
   
   I'm not opposed to updating this for _all_ releases.
   
   I wonder if it might be better to express support in terms of LTS releases instead (e.g. "11, 17, 21, "17, 21", "17, 21, 25").


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [PR] Clarify supported JVMs for Artemis [activemq-website]

Posted by "gemmellr (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

gemmellr commented on PR #162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/162#issuecomment-3442943135

   On the fence about this. On one hand it might be nice to discourage their use on the newer JVMs, but its also not 100% accurate as you can use them on >23 with the right config, and in configs that wont work on 24/25 you'd still need a flag on 23 too. It also seems inconsistent to have this style of definition for just those versions but not any of the earlier ones that have either the same or more restrictive limitations on the JVM.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [PR] Clarify supported JVMs for Artemis [activemq-website]

Posted by "gemmellr (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

gemmellr commented on PR #162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/162#issuecomment-3450873273

   That is true about the management, I keep forgetting about it since I don't really use it (I did check it worked on 25 with my changes enabling 25+ support...did not look what it did for the old versions though).
   
   I think the best thing we can do is what I said before, just actually work on everything available at the time of release. People upgrading to JDKs that didnt exist at that point should reasonably expect there is a chance it might not work, depending on what changed.
   
   For the reverse case now though, yeah I guess saying 17-22 makes most sense given its a reasonable enough expectation that 2.43.0 would have worked on JDK25 as its the latest release and came out after 25, and there wasnt an obviously newer stream that added such support instead. I'll merge your change and add a fixup with some other changes.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [PR] Clarify supported JVMs for Artemis [activemq-website]

Posted by "gemmellr (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

gemmellr merged PR #162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/162


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [PR] Clarify supported JVMs for Artemis [activemq-website]

Posted by "jbertram (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

jbertram commented on PR #162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/162#issuecomment-3444360378

The standalone vs. embedded use-case certainly complicates things since the OOTBE is fundamentally different.

Also, it's hard to say how many folks read this since issues are only reported when things don't work as expected. At the very least, we write documentation in hopes that folks will read it and as a reference for when questions arise. Despite automated upgrades it still behooves us to be human friendly.

Even if you don't turn on audit logging on Java 23 you'll still run into problems for some secured management use-cases (e.g. anything using Jolokia like the web console). And no current version will function properly on 24 or 25 in these situations. I think it would be nice to give users some kind of heads-up so they can make an informed decision.

I'm open to alternatives suggestions.

--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org