If IBM services are independent from one another we should follow how we do it on microsoft.
While there is no apache-airflow-providers-microsoft provider. We do have: apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-mssql apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-azure and others... azure is not the same division as mssql. The google provider is a unique case. We have apache-airflow-providers-google due to historical reasons (google ads has nothing to do with google cloud) and splitting the provider is not easy task https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/15933 I would also argue that apache-airflow-providers-amazon is not that good. If someone would like to add integration of Amazon marketplaces APIs (retail) that has nothing to do with AWS. On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:47 PM Vikram Koka via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
