It makes sense to me to have a separate release cycle for the JNI parts. I think lazy consensus is fine here and as long no one objects you can just go ahead and create it without a formal vote.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:51 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > yep, so far the best name is ActiveMQ-Artemis-native > > > I don't think this is a big deal and I don't intend to create a vote > for this.. as this is regular business. We are creating a separate > repository for the native part, not a project! > > Let me know If you anyone think I'm wrong and this needs a vote please. > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:59 PM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: > > > > That makes sense then - having a separate repo and release cycle for the > > native JNI library. > > > > Perhaps, as Jeff suggested, ActiveMQ-Artemis-native would be a good name? > > > > Art > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:04 AM Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > forgot to answer another point. > > > > > > Right now it's for posix (Linux) only. but that could change as the > > > project progresses. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:51 AM Clebert Suconic > > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > -- If the library is intended as a holder for "any JNI needed by > > > Artemis," > > > > then I don't see value in dis-associating it from Artemis. OTOH, if > the > > > > library has functionality that could be useful to other projects, > outside > > > > of Artemis, then I can see a value to breaking it away from the > Artemis > > > > name and making it more reusable. > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought about the possibility of dis-associating. .but you're > right.. > > > it's a bit more complicated... I wouldn't disassociate. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I don't have a concern either way on that front. Although I am > > > not sure why it helps to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a chicken / egg situation. Right now when we build the native > > > layer, we have to commit binary file on the git repository. > > > > I'm intending to fix that part. > > > > > > > > And that makes it difficult to have a real build from source > experience. > > > I have had a few cases where users needed to rebuild it from scratch, > and > > > bumped into this native issue, which I'm trying to improve here. > > > > > > > > The native layer build wouldn't have any .so, and the .so would be > part > > > of the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:36 AM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> JNI is a broad category - which really just means calling out from > Java > > > to > > > >> native O/S libraries. > > > >> > > > >> If the library is intended as a holder for "any JNI needed by > Artemis," > > > >> then I don't see value in dis-associating it from Artemis. OTOH, > if the > > > >> library has functionality that could be useful to other projects, > > > outside > > > >> of Artemis, then I can see a value to breaking it away from the > Artemis > > > >> name and making it more reusable. > > > >> > > > >> As for making it a separate repo with its own lifecycle, I don't > have a > > > >> concern either way on that front. Although I am not sure why it > helps > > > to > > > >> do so. Well, one question comes to mind - isn't this library > Linux, or > > > >> Posix, specific? Or, does it build on all systems that might be > used to > > > >> build Artemis? > > > >> > > > >> Art > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:52 PM Clebert Suconic < > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Currently it’s used for JNi operations around storage. Mostly > > > libido. But > > > >> > I foresee being used for other cases where we may need JNI. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:53 PM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > What is in the library? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Art > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:08 AM Clebert Suconic < > > > >> > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I thought Since the native project had open scope like I'm > > > proposing, > > > >> > > > it would eventually be useful anywhere that needs a JNI > library. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > But we can go with activemq-artemis-native. That's fine. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:51 PM jgenender < > jgenen...@apache.org> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hey Clebert, > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > This is really cool stuff. But I don't like it being called > > > >> > > > ActiveMQ-native > > > >> > > > > because it will confuse people with ActiveMQ classic (which > > > really is > > > >> > > > > ActiveMQ for now) or that it would even work with ActiveMQ > > > 5.x. I > > > >> > > would > > > >> > > > > recommend retaining the Artemis in the name, or > > > >> > > ActiveMQ-Artemis-native. > > > >> > > > > If/when Artemis becomes ActiveMQ, then that could certainly > be > > > an > > > >> > > option > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > drop Artemis. But at this stage I think its too confusing. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Jeff > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > Sent from: > > > >> > > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > Clebert Suconic > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Clebert Suconic > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
