+1 for supporting all the advisories that the current ActiveMQ 5.x supports.
As for when the advisory message is sent for a Producer, I'm not sure there is a specific guarantee about that. If a Producer is 'created', but a message is never sent, was it actually created? I'm not necessarily opposed to the lazy notification strategy. On Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 6:48 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also as a follow up, I noticed that the OpenWireProtocalManager already > fires a couple advisories for new connections/destinations. I can > certainly create a PR to add more advisories but I guess really the > question is whether or not we should support the advisories across any > protocol or not. > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In general it would be nice if all of the current advisories that are > > supported in 5.x could eventually be supported in Artemis as well. As I > > was looking at Artemis's notifications to see what currently existed one > > thing I noticed was that there is a lack of producer notifications. > Having > > an advisory sent when a producer is created is something that I know I > use > > all the time. > > > > I dug into this and it looks like the reason is because Artemis doesn't > > actually track a producer until the first message is sent. In fact > there's > > no notion of a producer on the core wire format at all (there's no packet > > type for it). > > > > I realize that many protocols don't have the notion of a producer...In > 5.x > > this is handled by just creating ProducerInfo objects on first connection > > when a protocol doesn't support it (ie Stomp, etc). However, the JMS API > > does have a specific call to create a producer so I find it useful to get > > an advisory message and to track when producers come online even if not > > every protocol supports this. > > > > So I guess I wanted to see what people thought about adding a > notification > > for producers and also trying to fill in the gaps for the rest of the > > advisory topics that are missing. > > >
