+1 On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 10:17 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote:
> It should just be called apache-airflow-providers-ibm, in future folks > might want to add more IBM hooks that are not just message queues. > > Similar to how Amazon & Google provider treats PubSub or Kinesis > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 16:57, Vikram Koka via dev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks David. > > I agree with Jason, that a PR is sufficient for this, and an AIP is not > > required. > > > > Looking forward to this, > > Vikram > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 7:28 AM Blain David <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Jason, > > > > > > Thanks for you reply, I've created a draft PR for this provider: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62790 > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Zhe-You(Jason) Liu <[email protected]> > > > Sent: 03 March 2026 10:37 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Interest in adding an IBM MQ provider (Hook + > > > MessageQueueProvider) to Airflow > > > > > > EXTERNAL MAIL: Indien je de afzender van deze e-mail niet kent en deze > > > niet vertrouwt, klik niet op een link of open geen bijlages. Bij > twijfel, > > > stuur deze e-mail als bijlage naar [email protected]<mailto: > > > [email protected]>. > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > Thank you for your interest in adding a new MessageQueueProvider to > > > Airflow! > > > > > > I previously opened an issue about adding more providers that support > > > MessageQueueProvider in the community providers. [1] You’re more than > > > welcome to contribute one! > > > > > > The only blocker to adding IBM MQ support to MessageQueueProvider is > "the > > > addition of a new IBM provider". We need to follow the adoption path > > > (AIP-95), similar to the recent Informatica provider. [2] > > > > > > > Whether there is interest in such a provider If yes, whether it > should > > > > live under apache-airflow-providers-ibm And if we formalize this as > an > > > > AIP or draft PR > > > > > > So, from my perspective, the IBM Hook, Trigger, and > MessageQueueProvider > > > would be better placed under the IBM provider, and perhaps you could > > start > > > by opening a draft PR and then initiating a voting thread on the dev > > > mailing list. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/52712 > > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/wsfgh23jm6hkrly4lx1m21ftllqshpgo > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 4:32 PM Blain David <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > At our company we recently implemented an IBM MQ integration for > > > > Airflow and I would like to gauge interest in contributing this as a > > > > new provider package. > > > > > > > > Motivation > > > > > > > > With the introduction of event-driven scheduling and the > > > > MessageQueueProvider abstraction in Airflow, it has become > > > > significantly easier to trigger DAGs from external message brokers > (as > > > > described in Astronomer's guide on event-driven scheduling): > > > > > > > > https://www/. > > > > astronomer.io > %2Fdocs%2Flearn%2Fairflow-event-driven-scheduling&data=05 > > > > %7C02%7Cdavid.blain%40infrabel.be > %7C5d12469000204dfffcaa08de7908795c%7 > > > > > Cb82bc314ab8e4d6fb18946f02e1f27f2%7C0%7C0%7C639081274492894548%7CUnkno > > > > > wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXa > > > > > W4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kxL1VOnepYK > > > > MP8Qjuy9vmkja03KziD8Z5yIo72nuNWE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > Many enterprises still rely heavily on IBM MQ as their primary > > > > enterprise messaging backbone. However, at the moment there is no > > > > official Airflow provider supporting IBM MQ. > > > > > > > > Our implementation enables: > > > > > > > > * An IBMMQHook > > > > * A MessageQueueProvider implementation for IBM MQ > > > > * The ability to trigger DAGs from IBM MQ events > > > > * Standard producer/consumer patterns from within tasks > > > > > > > > This allows IBM MQ to function similarly to Kafka, SQS, etc., within > > > > the Airflow event-driven scheduling framework. > > > > > > > > Technical Details > > > > > > > > The implementation is built on top of the open-source IBM MQ Python > > > > wrapper: > > > > > > > > * IBM MQ Python (ibmmq) library: > > > > https://gith/ > > > > ub.com > %2Fibm-messaging%2Fmq-mqi-python&data=05%7C02%7Cdavid.blain%40in > > > > frabel.be > %7C5d12469000204dfffcaa08de7908795c%7Cb82bc314ab8e4d6fb18946f > > > > > 02e1f27f2%7C0%7C0%7C639081274492911198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB > > > > > 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsI > > > > > ldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Wwdlf3w6mSFDca3zF37Coo6qfBSabKfjzI7 > > > > BILZDNmg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > IBM has recently released and documented their modern Python binding > > > here: > > > > > > > > https://comm/ > > > > unity.ibm.com > %2Fcommunity%2Fuser%2Fblogs%2Fdylan-goode%2F2025%2F10%2F1 > > > > > 6%2Fnew-python-binding-for-ibm-mq&data=05%7C02%7Cdavid.blain%40infrabe > > > > l.be > %7C5d12469000204dfffcaa08de7908795c%7Cb82bc314ab8e4d6fb18946f02e1f > > > > > 27f2%7C0%7C0%7C639081274492929801%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1h > > > > > cGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIj > > > > > oyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8Q%2Bl9qAltYOkFflC3yjxmu4NI630oCe8L9F3sB > > > > abTMg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > The hook supports: > > > > > > > > * Secure connections (TLS) > > > > * Queue get/put operations > > > > * Configurable polling behavior > > > > * Transaction handling where applicable > > > > > > > > The MessageQueueProvider implementation integrates with Airflow's > > > > event-driven scheduling so that DAGs can be triggered based on IBM MQ > > > > messages. > > > > > > > > Why this might make sense: > > > > > > > > * IBM MQ is still widely used in regulated industries (banking, > > > > insurance, government). > > > > * Many enterprises using Airflow also run IBM MQ. > > > > * This would allow IBM MQ to be a first-class citizen in > Airflow's > > > > event-driven ecosystem. > > > > * The dependency is officially maintained by IBM and open source. > > > > > > > > I am willing to act as initial maintainer and code owner, of course > > > > this is purely a proposition. > > > > > > > > I would appreciate feedback on: > > > > > > > > * Whether there is interest in such a provider > > > > * If yes, whether it should live under > apache-airflow-providers-ibm > > > > * And if we formalize this as an AIP or draft PR > > > > > > > > Happy to share a draft implementation through a PR if there is > > interest. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > David > > > > > > > > > >
