Yeah, the dev list is the best place to get discussions like that started. Step one would be just to go through and look at all the flags we have for policies and elsewhere in the broker (there are a ton) and identify which ones might make sense to change the default or even just remove entirely.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:27 AM Ken Liao <kenlia...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks JB and Christopher, yeah I agree with supporting AsyncCallback in > ActiveMQ 6 and deprecating it on ActiveMQ 7. > > Also, that is a great idea to revisit old behaviour that we might want to > remove in 7 and mark as deprecated in 6 as well. I assume the dev mailing > list is a good place to discuss that further on a separated email thread? > > Thanks, > Ken > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 1:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi Ken > > > > Thanks for bringing this ! > > > > I don't think option 2 is actually a good idea, at least today, as > > it's a change in the current behavior. I would rather prefer option 3 > > (different interfaces) on 6.x and deprecated AsyncCallback on 7.x > > trend. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 7:24 PM Ken Liao <kenlia...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hey dev community, > > > > > > Would like to get your opinion on this. To make ActiveMQ Classic fully > > > support JMS 2.0/Jakarta Messaging 3.1, it needs to support > > > CompletionListener interface for specifying callback once the > > asynchronous > > > send is completed. Currently, ActiveMQ Classic has its own public > > interface > > > AsyncCallback for client applications to specify the callback. However, > > the > > > behaviour of AsyncCallback is not JMS 2.0 compliant and it is specific > to > > > ActiveMQ. > > > > > > In my opinion, it will be a confusing experience for users because > there > > > are two mechanisms for specifying callbacks and I wonder if there are > any > > > advantages of using AsyncCallback over CompletionListener. Either: > > > 1. Deprecate AsyncCallback (throw exception) at the release where we > > > support CompletionListener. > > > 2. Change AsyncCallback behaviour to align with CompletionListener at > > that > > > release. > > > 3. Keep supporting these two different interfaces/behavior going > forward. > > > > > > Personally I am advocating for 2 but would like to hear what the > > community > > > thinks and check if I am missing something. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ken > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > >
