I am having an issue with auto created destinations. I am trying to get it done by tomorrow. If not will ask a delay.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:58 AM Michael André Pearce < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > I’ve just put an issue in hawtio asking if they can tag in the next day or > two, as I’d like to bump hawtio version before we tag if possible. > > essentially there are some bug fixes (escaped mbean url) that are fixed > already in their master but they simply haven’t tagged. I would hope we > know in next day if they’re able to do this. > > But if we could hold off just for a day or so please, so we have the > chance. > > Cheers > Mike > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 16:30, Martes Wigglesworth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Definitely. > > > > I am re-posting now. > > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> This probably warrants a separate thread > >> > >> On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, 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 apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who > >>>> wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Justin > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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] > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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] > -- Clebert Suconic
