jimma commented on pull request #919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/919#issuecomment-1060295909
@coheigea It looks this is for CXF jakarta namespace change. From [ActiveMQ
Artemis embraces Jakarta EE ](
https://blogs.apache.org/activemq/entry/activemq-artemis-embraces-jakarta-ee
rmannibucau commented on pull request #919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/919#issuecomment-1060328221
+1 @coheigea , artemis has no link with ActiveMQ (known as v5) so this is a
huge breaking change - we evaluated it at TomEE some years ago and it was not
even an option :(. Maybe
reta commented on pull request #919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/919#issuecomment-1060687601
@coheigea @rmannibucau referring @jimma comment, the ActiveMQ Classic does
not support Jakarta nor JMS 2.0+, so we have 2 + 1 choices here:
- migrate to ActiveMQ Artemis (JMS 1.1 &
coheigea commented on pull request #919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/919#issuecomment-1060706507
@reta Regarding OpenSAML, the work was already done on this branch -
https://github.com/apache/cxf/tree/opensaml4, but only in the context of
updating to WSS4J 2.5.x / OpenSAML 3.4.
reta commented on pull request #919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/919#issuecomment-1060730294
@coheigea @rmannibucau change reverted , thanks a for promtp feedback!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub a
rmannibucau commented on pull request #919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/919#issuecomment-1060746988
@reta my 2cts would be to use JMS 1.1 API (JMS 2.0 API is not needed in CXF
and does not bring anything AFAIK) and let the user provide the API he wants
for most usages. For the
reta commented on pull request #919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/919#issuecomment-1060767366
@rmannibucau thanks, I will try to research what are the plans for AMQ
Classic / Jakarta and what you guys did in TomEE. The 4.x is for long term,
indeed CXF does not need any / most of
