Thanks for the succinct response, Justin. This basically answers my question completely.
The implementation has made some assumptions that are not forward-compatible. Thanks so much for the quick response. On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > > the artemis implementation of ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the > setters and getters were removed? > > To be clear, the Artemis client implementation is 100% independent of the > 5.x client implementation so, technically speaking, no setters or getters > were removed. Also, it's worth noting that while Artemis has good feature > parity with the 5.x broker there has been no concerted effort toward API > compatibility between client implementations (of course excluding standards > like JMS, JNDI, etc.). > > > > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are > expecting > AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to. > > I'm not sure this is a valid expectation. As mentioned previously the two > client implementations are separate and no guarantee of API compatibility > has been advertised. The URL is really an implementation detail, and > applications that rely on implementation details open themselves up to > incompatibilities when moving between implementations. In the specific > case of API compatibility I would strongly encourage users towards > standards wherever possible in lieu of relying on implementation details. > > That said, if there's a simple change that would bring value to the Artemis > client implementation I think it would be accepted. > > > > Also, would this be more of a "user-list" post? > > Since this concerns the development of the broker (e.g. potential PR, etc.) > the dev list is fine. > > > Justin > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Martes Wigglesworth <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Greetings Justin. > > > > Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of > > ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed? > > > > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are > > expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to. > > > > By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting > > and getting brokerURL. > > > > Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch > > and it required either a legacy named wrapper of > ActiveMQConnectionFactory, > > or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and > > getBrokerURL. > > > > I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to > > create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the > > situation before moving forward. (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring > > access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods > > which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.) > > > > Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH? > > > > I was reading through the user-list just now, and someone made reference > to > > the AMP specification, and how certain property are immutable due to this > > specification. > > > > Is that possibly the source for the change in api? > > > > I am new to AMQ-Artemis source, so I may have missed some documented > reason > > for this change, and would appreciate any info, including a "RTFM" link. > > > > Also, would this be more of a "user-list" post? > > > -- Martes G Wigglesworth Senior Middleware Consultant Red Hat Consulting Red Hat, Inc. Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 Office Email: [email protected]
