sullis commented on issue #1: projects using ActiveMQ: jms-testkit
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/1#issuecomment-452179396
[jms-testkit] provides a concise Scala API. The API was designed
specifically for writing unit tests.
=> setting up an in-memory broker
Github user onlyMIT commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2491#discussion_r245879352
--- Diff:
artemis-protocols/artemis-mqtt-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/mqtt/MQTTSession.java
---
@@ -117,14
Github user onlyMIT commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2491#discussion_r245878622
--- Diff:
artemis-protocols/artemis-mqtt-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/mqtt/MQTTSession.java
---
@@ -117,14
Hi Clebert,
no, the current PRs are still valid and we will be able to merge it
without problem.
Regards
JB
On 07/01/2019 21:09, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> I forgot to ask this on the other thread. Will that affect any of the
> pending Pull Requests on the various projects?
>
> This shouldn't
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2491
IMO this should replace #2485.
---
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2485
After looking at writing a test for this I thought the solution here was
not very intuitive so I opened #2491 to address this problem (with a test).
---
GitHub user jbertram opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2491
ARTEMIS-2217 remove state on clean MQTT session disconnect
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull
Github user onlyMIT commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2485
@jbertram Nice! Really need more specific test
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2489
@franz1981 LGTM then :) merge...merge...merge
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2490
@franz1981 great thanks a million :)
---
I forgot to ask this on the other thread. Will that affect any of the
pending Pull Requests on the various projects?
This shouldn't affect your date. I just want to understand if we need
to do anything about them.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> as
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
Yes if @qihongxu agree to give an hand :P re this pr probably make sense to
include at least the second commit of my PR that was unrelated to the new cache
impl and was just avoiding an
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2490
@mochaelandrepearce sadly haven't had much time today to look into it :(
Tomorrow I have already scheduled some time in the morning to take a look
into this
---
Hi,
as mentioned in the other thread, and in order to give visibility to
everyone, I would like to do the move to gitbox on January, 9th.
Nothing change: I already the migration on several other projects
without problem.
Just after the migration, I will update scm section in the pom and
update
Github user clebertsuconic commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2467#discussion_r245777806
--- Diff:
artemis-protocols/artemis-amqp-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/protocol/amqp/proton/AMQPConnectionContext.java
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2490
@franz1981 did you get a chance to look, do you think this is better than
original solution?
Am keen to get this feature into the next release cut.
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
@franz1981 i think well have to do some more real world testing with it
(difference between a isolated bench and a full e2e test), with @qihongxu help
hopefully, it might be
No objections. I want to make a release right after this. Just need to
know the timing and I can send the heads up after this.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> Infra wanted consensus on the list to be referenced in the request
> JIRA raised to volunteer for migration,
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
@michaelandrepearce I would like first to trigger a CI job of some kind,
maybe @clebertsuconic can help with his superbox (just this time) to get an
answer sooner?
Re the cache
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
@franz1981 based on this, shall we merge this pr as is which is quite
impressive result at a combined 49.4k.
And then work on livepagecache changes separately?
Infra wanted consensus on the list to be referenced in the request
JIRA raised to volunteer for migration, so a specific lazy-consensus
statement would be good, e.g "I'll raise the request for migration
on/at if no discussion arises to prompt a change", that way its
clearly stated for Infra to
+1 please go ahead :)
(non-binding)
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:19 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm ready to do the move.
>
> No objection ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 07/01/2019 17:30, Justin Bertram wrote:
> > Where are we on this? Has anything actually happened yet?
> >
> >
> > Justin
jbertram commented on issue #1: projects using ActiveMQ: jms-testkit
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/1#issuecomment-452005514
Even after looking at the linked project I can't easily determine what it's
actually for. Both the ActiveMQ 5.x and ActiveMQ Artemis brokers
Hi,
I'm ready to do the move.
No objection ?
Regards
JB
On 07/01/2019 17:30, Justin Bertram wrote:
> Where are we on this? Has anything actually happened yet?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:22 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
>> For what its worth, I've now been through migration
Where are we on this? Has anything actually happened yet?
Justin
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:22 AM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> For what its worth, I've now been through migration of the various
> Qpid repositories to the Gitbox service, it was very straightforward.
>
> I proposed we migrate shortly
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2485
I'm going to look at writing a test for this.
---
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
> A possible explanation might be that in our case consumers were reading
old pages while producers were writing new pages. There is no intersection
between these two groups such as a
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
@qihongxu Sorry to ask twice, but I haven't understood if `Ver no lock &
new livePageCache` was making uses of this pr
https://github.com/qihongxu/activemq-artemis/pull/1
---
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2469
@clebertsuconic, done.
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2475
---
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2469
I think this warrants a JIRA.
---
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2489
@michaelandrepearce Already done! I was thinking exactly the same!
---
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
@qihongxu ping! :) I'm too curious :)
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2489
@franz1981 why not fix up FakeQueue to correctly set it
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2490
@franz1981 just ignore class comments, theyre the originals still, ill need
to change, but wanted to get to you quickly so you have chance to look over. If
you think this is
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2490
@michaelandrepearce Nice! Will take a look today or max tomorrow :+1:
---
GitHub user michaelandrepearce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2490
V2 196
@franz1981 an alternative so we don't have to have a copy of
CopyOnWriteArrayList, it does mean on add or remove consumer we have to invoke
toArray which causes a
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
@qihongxu
> Ver no lock & new livePageCache
Is making use of the last 2 commits I have sent as a PR to your repository?
It sould be way lot faster then `Ver no
Github user qihongxu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
@michaelandrepearce @franz1981
After we ran tests on both version (one with no lock and the other with new
LivePageCache & no lock ), the result chart is as below.
 | Send
39 matches
Mail list logo
