Got it, thanks! On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:00 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >
