Just that I want to redesign some of the interfaces that geronimo's security module is using. So it's best to keep G on version that's currently using. I'm not so worried having amq depend on changing interfaces since I can keep them in sync much easier.
Regards, Hiram On 3/23/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll note that. Hiram...any reason you can think of that would stop us from > testing the newer ActiveIO on the 1.0.0 build to shake out any issues? > > > Hiram Chirino wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > On 3/23/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Cross posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so the Geronimo team is involved in > >>discussions regarding ActiveMQ integration, as I don't think the missing > >>gbean support in ActiveMQ 4.0 has been discussed on the Geronimo dev list. > >> > >>The missing gbean support was a surprise to me as I wasn't expecting > >>ActiveMQ 4.0 to be missing the functionality that it had in ActiveMQ > >>3.2.1 currently used by Geronimo. I was expecting 4.0 to almost be a > >>drop in replacement, except for the change of package names. I was > >>hoping to play with a 4.0-RCx release with Geronimo. > >> > >>I am concerned about Geronimo staying with a 3.2.x release when it has > >>been mentioned that 4.0 should be more stable and a number of bugs in > >>3.2.x have only been fixed in the 4.0 code. > >> > >>Hiram, when you have an idea of the effort required to implement the > >>GBeans support ActiveMQ 4.x let's discuss time frames for Geronimo to > >>moving to an ASF hosted ActiveMQ release. > >> > > > > > > I just took a stab at porting the old gbeans to 4.x and everything is > > compiling now again. So I think for 4.x we should have at least the > > same level of crappy integration that 3.x had. I'm hoping we can do > > better though. I started to test with Geronimo 1.1 and I've him my > > first big issue. ActiveMQ 4.x depends on activeio 2.1 which is not > > compatible with the version Geronimo uses. So I think I'll work on > > upgrading activemq to use activeio 3.x which CAN be concurrently used > > with the version Geronimo uses. I would just upgrade Geronimo's > > security module to use the 2.x or 3.x but activeio's interfaces are > > still not pinned down and I want to avoid other folks from breaking > > next time it changes. > > > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > > > > >>Regards, > >> > >>John > >> > >>Hiram Chirino wrote: > >> > >>>Hi John, > >>> > >>>Yep it will be needed. We need to update it so that it works with the > >>>new 4.x way of updating stuff. Should not be to hard to get it > >>>working again now that 4.x has stabilized. What would be nice is to > >>>have a better set of gbeans than what we had with ActiveMQ 3.x. The > >>>3.x gbeans allow you to configure about 5% of the options that > >>>activemq allows you to tweak using the standard activemq.xml files. I > >>>was hoping we could improve this for 4.x. > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>>Hiram > >>> > >>>On Mar 21, 2006, at 1:33 AM, John Sisson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>What needs to be done to Geronimo to use ActiveMQ 4.0-RC1 when it is > >>>>available for testing? > >>>> > >>>>I noticed the activemq-gbean module (that was available in previous > >>>>ActiveMQ releases used by Geronimo) is under the sandbox with some > >>>>svn log comments about it not being operational. > >>>>Won't this be needed for embedding ActiveMQ in Geronimo? > >>>> > >>>>Thanks, > >>>> > >>>>John > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > > > > -- Regards, Hiram
