Hi Chris,
we are currently ironing out all remaining issues so we can feel
comfortable calling for a vote for a GA release of ActiveMQ very
soon. We want to actively start discussing the changes required on
the dev list - but want to get 4.0 settled first. So if you could
bear with us for another week or two we'd appreciate it. Currently
there are no design docs as such - but we'll pass one around soon
for discussion.
cheers,
Rob
On 28 Apr 2006, at 20:25, Larrieu, Christopher wrote:
Great! But what exactly does "side-by-side" mean? Does this imply
that whatever changes you make will be swappable with existing
code? Are there any design documents that we can review in order
to understand how your improvements will affect our goals and/or
meet our needs?
Thanks,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:34 AM
To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Avoid blocking producers
Hi Chris,
we are planning on prototyping this for 4.1 and will do this
side-by- side to the existing implementation. We should have
the first cut implemented in the next couple of months - but
any contributions are welcome!
cheers,
Rob
On 27 Apr 2006, at 23:32, Larrieu, Christopher wrote:
Rob,
In response to JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/
AMQ-688#action_36051 you mentioned that you are looking into some
major changes for decoupling producers and consumers, as well as
implementing the staged feeding of dispatch queues. Much of this
coincides with work that we need in order to use ActiveMQ
effectively
in our organization. If we were to move forward
independently without
collaborating, we'd end up arriving with wildly divergent results.
Can you provide some more details, so that we can plan accordingly?
Thanks,
Chris
Rob Davies
http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
