|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
< [hidden email]> 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
|
|
|
+1 for me.
Regards
JB
> Le 14 janv. 2021 à 18:45, Clebert Suconic < [hidden email]> 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
> < [hidden email]> 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
|
|
|
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 < [hidden email]>
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
>
>
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
+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 < [hidden email]> 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
>
>
|
|
|
+1 !!
Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]> 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
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
Finally!
+1
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro < [hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 !!
>
> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
|
|
|
+1
Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 21:03 Havret < [hidden email]> ha
scritto:
> Finally!
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro < [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 !!
> >
> > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> > [hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]>
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|
|
|
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 < [hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Finally!
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro < [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 !!
>>>
>>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
>>> [hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
|
|
|
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" < [hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Finally!
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro < [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 !!
>>>
>>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
>>> [hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]>
>>> 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/>
|
|
|
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 < [hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> >> Finally!
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:52 PM Francesco Nigro < [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 !!
> >>>
> >>> Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 20:33 Christopher Shannon <
> >>> [hidden email]> 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 < [hidden email]>
> >>> 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
|
|
Locked
