Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On 8/9/07, Gert Vanthienen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
You mean a file based implementation of servicemix-audit ?
See
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/dist/servicemix-3.1-incubating/site/core/servicemix-audit/apidocs/org/apache/servicemix/jbi/audit/AuditorMBean.html
Yes, my first comment was exactly that: using an auditor for archiving
the files. This isn't the best solution for this particular issue, but
it still might be a worthwhile addition to ServiceMix. We still need to
find a good way to avoid having to load entire messages into memory
however. Anybody has any good suggestions for solving that?
I think a TeeInputStream should work perfectly. I guess this would be
the best option for very large files (it would avoid reading the whole
file twice).
I think we should only backport bug fixes, do you ?
But I'm open to discuss that, especially given the long release cycle
we have (we really need to do something about that, btw).
That's exactly why I was asking. I think these branches are great for
doing bug fixes on an existing release, but I agree we should try to
avoid it for new features. What is holding us back to shorten the
release cycle (or even time-boxing it)? I'm trying to build a tool to
regenerate the legal files, so we can already avoid the pain of checking
those 'manually' every time. Is there anything else?
Nothing, really. I'd like the new endpoints for http and jms be finished, but
nothing else. However it may be worth waiting for the board meeting (one or two
weeks) so that we can remove the incubation disclaimers and have a release that
we can put on maven public repositories. Wdyt?
It probably is worth waiting for then. I think we should even consider
releasing 3.2 (with the new HTTP/JMS endpoints, servicemix-camel, ...)
instead of another 3.1.x bugfix release.
There is another issue I would like to see resolved in our next release,
which is the one mentioned in
http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Causing-OutOfMemoryError-After-Service-Deployment-tf4133779s12049.html.
Does anyone know what the corresponding ActiveMQ issue is and when it
will become available in a release?
