I am not sure about that Kaxil and Jarek. I understand the prior model of Google and Amazon, but those had teams responsible for all the integrations with that service. In the new governance model, the support burden for an interested individual or individuals seems too high when the team is not a service provider.
Why not let individuals or SIs (system integrators) take the "individual service supported" approach? This is similar to the Apache services model. Vikram On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 1:20 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
