Question now: should we have someone bringing the rest from AMQ5 into Artemis? Is there any value on converting it to artemis?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:53 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If there is value on the rest from activemq 5. I would rather bring that one > to artemis instead of keeping the one we had. > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:12 PM Tetreault, Lucas > <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the >> > beginning of this thread? >> No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is some >> value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the >> arguments in support of removing it are "I don't believe much in rest from >> JMS due to the session and stateful nature" and "any time someone ask >> questions we just mention don't use it... (favoring stomp instead)" which I >> think would apply equally to "Classic". >> >> > As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two >> > cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be >> > analyzed before voting for deprecation. >> How can we analyze usage? Anecdotally, Amazon MQ does not support REST on >> our managed brokers and we've never had anyone ask for it to be enabled. >> Just a datapoint, not saying we should make decisions based on that. >> >> - Lucas >> >> On 2022-09-12, 2:58 PM, "Cesar Hernandez" <cesargu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not >> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know >> the content is safe. >> >> >> >> > >> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? >> >> >> Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the >> beginning >> of this thread? >> As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two >> cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be >> analyzed before voting for deprecation. >> >> >> El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas >> (<tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió: >> >> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same >> > arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc. >> > >> > We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as >> > incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting! >> > >> > - Lucas >> > >> > On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >> > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender >> and >> > know the content is safe. >> > >> > >> > >> > I will go ahead and remove it... >> > >> > >> > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal. >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic >> > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now >> > > >> > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection. >> > > >> > > >> > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly >> > don’t see many options to keep it. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell < >> > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of >> > chance >> > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at >> <date> >> > if >> > >> noone objects' :) >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic < >> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > I will go ahead and remove it... >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the >> > session >> > >> > and stateful nature. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather >> > bring the >> > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and >> this >> > >> > module has to go for sure. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell < >> > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires >> > various user >> > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in >> > doing....I >> > >> > > think removing it makes sense. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic < >> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in >> Artemis >> > has been >> > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest >> > interface is >> > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's >> not >> > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just >> > mention don't >> > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead). >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving >> > activemq-artemis into 3.0... >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the >> module. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Any objections? >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > -- >> > >> > > > Clebert Suconic >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Clebert Suconic >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Clebert Suconic >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Clebert Suconic >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Atentamente: >> César Hernández. >> > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
