> I don't think it as a separate project, just as a separate repository with its own release cycle to make things easier.
I like the idea of a separate repository for that component and I like the idea of a separate release cycle. From my POV, it seems that it would allow it to evolve at it's own pace. I also think it would add some flexibility to the feature set of Artemis (for example, one idea I was playing with recently - just for fun - was whether we could add support for ASYNC AIO on IBM Power and ARM). Maybe a separate component would allow this sort of thing without causing too much noise and instabilities risks to the project. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:52 PM michael.andre.pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > Tbh, i see nothing wrong with making it a mini sub project. If anything > having some sub projects is a good thing. > Would the supporting java code be moved also? > And would we look to make the interfaces more generic? > Im keen if we separate something thats currently tighly embedded in > artemis, we make sure it is much more re-usable (e.g. even example > alternative uses). > On that note, i think there are other bits that could be split out, a bit > like what occured in activemq5. > E.g. spring integration, protocol manager, other extensions > And should welcome this a little more with newer extensions or features > that enhance activemq but not core broker. > > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 30/01/2019 16:31 (GMT+00:00) To: > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis Native as a > separated project > One of the modules of ActiveMQ Artemis is the Native Layer: > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/056cee4183a048028c0a5417304eb89a540e1316/artemis-native > > We currently hold all JNI Calls (pretty much libaio ATM). > > It is stable and the release cycle is very long. Maybe one or two > changes an year with the current scope. This may become different if > we expand the scope of JNI operations supported by the broker). > > I would like to make it a separate git repository from ActiveMQ > Artemis, with its own releasy cycle. (we would even be able to remove > the currently .so that are currently checked in on artemis). It is > the sensitive thing to do. > > I don't think it as a separate project, just as a separate repository > with its own release cycle to make things easier. > > I would like to name it ActiveMQ-Native, dropping the word Artemis, as > it would be used for any further JNI operations needed for any other > Java Projects part of ActiveMQ Artemis. We currently only have libaio, > but I would keep the door open for other JNI operations we may need. > > > I was wondering if anyone have any other ideas around it. > > > Also: Would we need a vote to proceed on such change after we reach a > consensus on what to do here? > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- Otavio R. Piske Messaging Quality Assurance Engineer
