|Re: [jms-dev] Jakarta Messaging Plan for version 3.1 (Jakarta EE 10)|
So do we think we reached some kind of consensus on which way to go? Do folks that have not chimed in yet have an opinion?_______________________________________________Either way, I will go though the current issue tracker and triage issues this week. I don’t think that has been done in a while. If other folks can join in, that would be awesome.Reza RahmanJakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, SpeakerPlease note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.On May 4, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the feature that is most important to have is a CDI based alternative to MDB. There are several other issues we discussed at length in the JCP days, but I think they are less important by comparison: https://jakartaee-ambassadors.io/guide-to-contributing-to-jakarta-ee-10/.
If we can't do that, we should go though the issue tracker and gather some minor fix items. I definitely think we should be able to able to gather enough of those for a small maintenance release.
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
On 5/4/2021 7:29 PM, Ondro Mihályi wrote:
I noticed that Messaging didn't submit a plan for review for Jakarta EE 10. Do we still want to submit a plan so that we can deliver a new version of JMS in EE 10?
I think that plans should have been submitted by April 15 but we may still try to submit a plan because JMS is a very important Jakarta EE specification. It wouldn't be a good message if JMS didn't get any update for EE 10, at least with very minor updates.
Because we didn't have any discussion about new features recently, we could introduce something from the roadmap outlined by David in 2019 in a github issue. I would only go after things that are rather straightforward, long overdue, and already well documented. So from the items in that issue, I suggest to consider only:
Additionally, we can support repeatable annotations in some cases, e.g. for JMSDestinationDefinition.
What do you think? Do you want me to start working on a plan for Messaging 3.1 that we would submit to the https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications repository?
Should we plan to add the new features as I suggested above? Or it's much more that we can handle and it's better to submit a plan just to add fixes and possibly support repeatable annotations?
What do you think?
_______________________________________________ jms-dev mailing list jms-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jms-dev
jms-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jms-dev
Back to the top