[DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

jbonofre
Hi guys,

As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.

The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).

I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).

We have two options here:

- still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
- define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
dependencies.

Thoughts ?

Regards
JB
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

jgallimore
Personally, I'd prefer something that still ran on Java 8, but I'll
understand if I'm in the minority.

What benefits do we get from upgrading Derby to 10.15.1.3 and therefore
requiring Java 9?

Jon

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:26 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
>
> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
>
> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
>
> We have two options here:
>
> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
> dependencies.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Regards
> JB
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

jbonofre
Hi Jon,

I took Derby as example, it's more a general topic.

It's also a question of timing, I can cut 5.16.0 as it's (with JDK 11
support but still JDK 8 support as well) and prepare 5.17.0 with JDK9 min.

Regards
JB

On 31/10/2019 11:35, Jonathan Gallimore wrote:

> Personally, I'd prefer something that still ran on Java 8, but I'll
> understand if I'm in the minority.
>
> What benefits do we get from upgrading Derby to 10.15.1.3 and therefore
> requiring Java 9?
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:26 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
>> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
>>
>> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
>>
>> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
>> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
>>
>> We have two options here:
>>
>> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
>> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
>> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
>> dependencies.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> [hidden email]
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

jgallimore
Hi JB

Thanks for the reply (and for raising the original topic)! To clarify my
position a bit (as it might seem a bit random), I'm coming at this from the
perspective of an Apache TomEE contributor and we use ActiveMQ in TomEE to
provide JMS - and that provides both the ability to connect to ActiveMQ
running standalone, or to boot up an embedded broker in TomEE itself. We're
at the point where we've released TomEE 8, and that targets Jakarta EE 8
(we're not quite certified yet, but we're working on it). Jakarta EE 8 is
basically binary compatible with Java EE 8, and therefore is based on Java
SE 8. Most app servers seem to be at the point where they work with both
Java SE 8 through to 11. As 8 and 11 both have long-term support, we're
seeing users choosing one of those Java versions in the main.

From a TomEE perspective, I think it would be great for us to move to
ActiveMQ 5.16.0 on TomEE 8, but still be able to use Java versions 8
through 11. I don't think the Jakarta EE roadmap is fully known yet, but EE
9 is may just be the namespace change (javax. -> jakarta.) and not much
else, but imagine the community will be looking at the Java version level
before very long.

If there are functional benefits to moving to dependencies that require
Java 9 or above, that might influence the view of the ActiveMQ community,
but I'm not sure on the detail of those dependencies which is why I was
asking. From a timing perspective, if its easier to keep Java 8 - 11
support for 5.16.0 and enables the release to happen more quickly, and then
look at Java 9+ for 5.17.x, that sounds like it would make sense to me.

Thanks for listening to my feedback, I hope it helps :)

Jon

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:56 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
> I took Derby as example, it's more a general topic.
>
> It's also a question of timing, I can cut 5.16.0 as it's (with JDK 11
> support but still JDK 8 support as well) and prepare 5.17.0 with JDK9 min.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 31/10/2019 11:35, Jonathan Gallimore wrote:
> > Personally, I'd prefer something that still ran on Java 8, but I'll
> > understand if I'm in the minority.
> >
> > What benefits do we get from upgrading Derby to 10.15.1.3 and therefore
> > requiring Java 9?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:26 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
> >> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
> >>
> >> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
> >>
> >> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
> >> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
> >>
> >> We have two options here:
> >>
> >> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
> >> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
> >> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
> >> dependencies.
> >>
> >> Thoughts ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >> --
> >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

Robbie Gemmell
In reply to this post by jbonofre
I suggested on the derby update PR that this thread was needed mainly
since the min version changing hadnt been discussed before that I
could recall, only that 11 should be fully supported. It wasnt clear
to me anyone had reallypreviously considered it actually changing, I
know I definitely hadnt.

In actually thinking on it further this morning, I would say
maintaining support for Java 8 is still the way to go for now. Since
it was a decent while between 8 and 9, and then both it and 10 were
essentially nixed from a support perspective even before release, many
seem to have stuck it out with 8 or were even at the time still on 7.
It feels like thats only really beginning to change now, so it seems a
little early to drop 8. Obviously some folks have though or we wouldnt
be discussing this.

If we were to drop Java 8 support now, having not previously really
been targetting Java 9+, then I'd perhaps instead go ahead and require
Java 11 at this point rather than just 9. It seems like many folks
will jump from 8 (or 7) straight up to 11 given the support
arrangements around the various releases. As such, supporting 9+10
while not also supporting 8 seems of minimal benefit at this point, it
would be the same issue for many folks, and so could largely just
prevent using the functionality from Java 11 even though thats what
many would actually be running it on for support reasons.

Robbie

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 10:26, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi guys,
>
> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
>
> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
>
> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
>
> We have two options here:
>
> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
> dependencies.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Regards
> JB
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by jbonofre
On 10/31/19 6:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
>
> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
>
> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
>
> We have two options here:
>
> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
> dependencies.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Regards
> JB

Given how long folks have been waiting on a 5.16.0 release I'd go with
option 2 and continue supporting JDK 8 so that a new release that can
run on newer JDKs is out but still maintains compatibility with the
existing supported platform.

Once 5.16.0 is out then a move to JDK 11 in 5.17.0 if such a release was
ever to be done would be the next most sensible option as that moves to
supported JDK.

--
Tim Bish

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

jbonofre
Hi Tim,

I agree, let me focus on 5.16.0 running with JDK 8, 9, 11, 12 ...

It makes sense.

I'm completing 5.15.11 now, and 5.16.0 will follow.

Regards
JB

On 31/10/2019 16:53, Timothy Bish wrote:

> On 10/31/19 6:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
>> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
>>
>> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
>>
>> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
>> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
>>
>> We have two options here:
>>
>> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
>> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
>> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
>> dependencies.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>
> Given how long folks have been waiting on a 5.16.0 release I'd go with
> option 2 and continue supporting JDK 8 so that a new release that can
> run on newer JDKs is out but still maintains compatibility with the
> existing supported platform.
>
> Once 5.16.0 is out then a move to JDK 11 in 5.17.0 if such a release was
> ever to be done would be the next most sensible option as that moves to
> supported JDK.
>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

christopher.l.shannon
+1 for keeping JDK 8 as the minimum for 5.16.0 and then focussing on
bumping the minimum to JDK 11 for 5.17.0

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 12:11 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> I agree, let me focus on 5.16.0 running with JDK 8, 9, 11, 12 ...
>
> It makes sense.
>
> I'm completing 5.15.11 now, and 5.16.0 will follow.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 31/10/2019 16:53, Timothy Bish wrote:
> > On 10/31/19 6:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
> >> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
> >>
> >> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
> >>
> >> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
> >> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
> >>
> >> We have two options here:
> >>
> >> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
> >> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
> >> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
> >> dependencies.
> >>
> >> Thoughts ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >
> > Given how long folks have been waiting on a 5.16.0 release I'd go with
> > option 2 and continue supporting JDK 8 so that a new release that can
> > run on newer JDKs is out but still maintains compatibility with the
> > existing supported platform.
> >
> > Once 5.16.0 is out then a move to JDK 11 in 5.17.0 if such a release was
> > ever to be done would be the next most sensible option as that moves to
> > supported JDK.
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 5.16.0 minimum Java version

jbonofre
In reply to this post by jbonofre
Hi guys,

I got a consensus as follow:

- 5.15.x: JDK 8 max
- 5.16.x: JDK 8 still compliant, support of JDK 9+
- 5.17.x: JDK 9+ min

I've updated Jira accordingly.

Thanks for your comments !

Regards
JB

On 31/10/2019 11:02, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> As I'm working on 5.16.0 release preparation, it's important to agree
> about the minimum Java version for runtime of this version.
>
> The purpose is to fully support JDK 9+ (and so 11, 12, 13).
>
> I started some upgrade to fully support those Java versions (for
> instance Derby 10.15.1.3 upgrade).
>
> We have two options here:
>
> - still support JDK8 and run with newer version (and then, we have to
> keep JDK8 compliant dependencies, like Derby 10.14.2.0 for instance)
> - define JDK9 as minimum version to run and then, we can upgrade the
> dependencies.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com