Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOqetn-7YTRdMCGWYf_3FKLkWyASnL3=dum1evmcJg03nPtxbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACHnxzzWMsS_YysGg5CD7E_Eufv-qC4TyYwaA7o16Y1sGXC++g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKF+bsr7=6SbCnLbRkQREw+p=C9f6N9+diugHYDeY1wxDiv8=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKF+bsqwhkQYy08UbJQ0C6zrqT8H=LakB-h1vTvuDsFVGP_pqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACHnxzxqgfHs7C+1+wyLwp36JSKMz-zzO9XrQqzw=pZ6GTZ6Hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKF+bsr=TTrF4CK6Eu6_nzVYJFFbJ54esiNNTciNyTyengwHEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn9DA8G7xvmWEdwjru+PzVO3PUj3-V=Pzhu8dkcX_5-BbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn8KvMkg05LK-DA0B9M4BD64kM+cLecC1pdQN55vOsX3tA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOqetn-7YTRdMCGWYf_3FKLkWyASnL3=dum1evmcJg03nPtxbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHnxzzMT5NCV3=_cHoB+JRPWwj8AV-wNm-ZAfrf8kXVtbyG=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Require Java 8 for 5.15 and Artemis
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e1a46e3ac02053f4be2d9
archived-at: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:27:30 -0000

--001a114e1a46e3ac02053f4be2d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I would be ok bumping the major version for Artemis but I don't think I'd
want to do it for 5.x.  I think the goal at this point is the next major
version of ActiveMQ (ie ActievMQ 6.0) should be based on Artemis if/when
the community agrees that it is ready.


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:19 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> Just a late night thought.  What about bumping the major versions for both
> to indicate the incompatibility?  It gives volunteers the option to back
> port features if needed to the current release lines.
>
> On Oct 19, 2016 17:10, "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Well, I think the difference is that internally 5.x uses Camel for routing
> in addition to the camel component.  Any camel integration for Artemis is
> external.
>
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:02 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > For artemis: I have used JDK 1.8 last release I built. I believe
> > Martyn also used 1.8 on the releases he deployed.
> >
> > All the apache CIs for Artemis are using JDK 1.8 afaik. (will double
> > check later)
> >
> > I have some internal CIs on my dev env that are also using 1.8.
> >
> > The only thing we didn't do is the require JVM on compilation. Would
> > there be any issues on Camel?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Christopher Shannon
> > <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well we do need 1.8 so we can use Camel 2.18 and fix OSGi stuff in
> 5.15.
> > > And I figured it would be a bit odd if 5.x upgraded but Artemis didn't
> > > upgrade.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> man... I'm messed up today.. wrong thread ... (on my previous message)
> > >>
> > >> anyways... If we can keep 1.7 for now and move it when we need it?
> > >>
> > >> I'm already using JDK 1.8 for dev, and I believe everybody is... all
> > >> the CIs are on JDK 1.8, but from time to time I check on 1.7 just to
> > >> be sure.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> My main concern is with clients.. from time to time I see users
> > >> needing JDK 1.OOOOLD on clients.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Clebert Suconic
> > >> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Actually, this was originally written by @CSchneider :)  ...
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Christopher Shannon
> > >> > <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> With the release of Camel 2.18 I thought now was a good time to
> > propose
> > >> >> this.  I think for the ActiveMQ 5.15 release we should bump the
> > required
> > >> >> Java version to Java 8 as this will allow us to use Camel 2.18 so
> we
> > can
> > >> >> finally fix our OSGi module and drop the deprecated Spring DM
> > entirely.
> > >> >> This release probably won't go out until sometime next year and by
> > that
> > >> >> time JDK 9 should be either released or close to being released and
> > JDK
> > >> 7
> > >> >> will have had its last public update nearly 2 years ago.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Also, I figure we might as well do the same thing for Artemis.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Any objections or reasons to stick with Java 7?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Clebert Suconic
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Clebert Suconic
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>

--001a114e1a46e3ac02053f4be2d9--