[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: Fixing examples commons
GitHub user clebertsuconic opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/232 Fixing examples commons Examples/jms/common was wrongly renamed long time ago, commons/prettify was broken and this will fix formatting on the README files You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/clebertsuconic/activemq-6 master Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/232.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #232 commit afdde0a7bf789dda5fd62733ee3f84fb93e2342e Author: Clebert Suconic Date: 2015-05-07T02:22:37Z Fixing examples commons Examples/common was wrongly renamed long time ago, commons/prettify was broken and this will fix formatting on the README files --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
I sent PR # 231 [1] to (hopefully) deal with this. The license and checkstyle checks will be on for the the following profiles: -dev - used by developers -tests - used by Jenkins for regression tests, including nightly tests -fast-tests - used to verify pull requests -release - used when releasing (duh) They're off for everything else. Justin [1] https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/231 - Original Message - From: "Timothy Bish" To: dev@activemq.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 9:35:51 AM Subject: Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build On 05/06/2015 10:24 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: > which I think is fine. it doesnt matter for users who are just > building from source, its only an issue for contributions which the PR > build is there to catch Agreed, the users should be able to work however they are comfortable and let the automation handle the checks. > > On 06/05/15 15:21, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> That's the kind of thing that won't happen.. people will just ignore it >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andy Taylor >> wrote: >>> or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want >>> >>> >>> On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would rather have people getting issues at their code. Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it easy for users to disable it. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: > > Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that > build > from > source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build > from > source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, > users > own > source etc. > > > On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> >> >> So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get >> our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a >> failed PR. >> I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's >> time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on >> looking at PRs for that kind of error. >> >> So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. >> >> >> Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that >> case,, >> why? >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Just a heads up, >>> >>> >>> Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, >>> and the >>> PR checks... >>> >>> >>> So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un >>> noticed without a build failure ;) >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > -- Tim Bish Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. tim.b...@redhat.com | www.redhat.com twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: A bunch of commits to fix Maven/bui...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/231 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: A bunch of commits to fix Maven/bui...
GitHub user jbertram opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/231 A bunch of commits to fix Maven/build stuff You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-artemis master_work Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/231.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #231 commit 4735d38d7bfdbbed6d5b2f0fae6c6c6629a5dc12 Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T16:15:33Z Update surefire plugin versions commit e42d742af0cde66d54a6651488a6080a144a2180 Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T16:38:04Z Disable license and checkstyle checks by default; add a new 'dev' profile with license and checkstyle checks enabled commit ad28e59e9ca51e2f128452db47e21db160631f52 Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T19:18:41Z Enable extra tests in 'extra-tests' profile commit 7eabe3a171a96a6f869cda44f7ef1913f64b1a33 Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T19:19:57Z Drastically simplify git ignores commit 8d3d8eda73a373238f873712c5cc3ad341be373f Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T19:20:18Z Obey license check property commit 076b56ba9816eb4dee4c6b817ecda8abc7b3654c Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T19:51:31Z Set Arjuna properties commit c9e173e064d0c413d34329c9c9f4180ea13fb5b8 Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T20:04:41Z Use target directory for test data --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: CLI Create command enhancements and...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/229 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
On 05/06/2015 10:24 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: > which I think is fine. it doesnt matter for users who are just > building from source, its only an issue for contributions which the PR > build is there to catch Agreed, the users should be able to work however they are comfortable and let the automation handle the checks. > > On 06/05/15 15:21, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> That's the kind of thing that won't happen.. people will just ignore it >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andy Taylor >> wrote: >>> or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want >>> >>> >>> On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would rather have people getting issues at their code. Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it easy for users to disable it. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: > > Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that > build > from > source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build > from > source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, > users > own > source etc. > > > On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> >> >> So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get >> our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a >> failed PR. >> I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's >> time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on >> looking at PRs for that kind of error. >> >> So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. >> >> >> Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that >> case,, >> why? >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Just a heads up, >>> >>> >>> Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, >>> and the >>> PR checks... >>> >>> >>> So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un >>> noticed without a build failure ;) >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > -- Tim Bish Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. tim.b...@redhat.com | www.redhat.com twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
To be clear, those issues weren't caught because the license check was disabled even on the PR build. If that was enabled we would have caught the issues before the code was merged. - Original Message - From: "Clebert Suconic" To: dev@activemq.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 9:22:32 AM Subject: Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build As it has happened.. we had a few issues on the github already that we needed to fix. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > That's the kind of thing that won't happen.. people will just ignore it > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: >> or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want >> >> >> On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: >>> >>> The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would >>> rather have people getting issues at their code. >>> >>> >>> Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it >>> easy for users to disable it. >>> >>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor >>> wrote: Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that build from source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build from source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, users own source etc. On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get > our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a > failed PR. > I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's > time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on > looking at PRs for that kind of error. > > So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. > > > Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, > why? > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: >> >> >> Just a heads up, >> >> >> Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the >> PR checks... >> >> >> So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un >> noticed without a build failure ;) > > > > > >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
which I think is fine. it doesnt matter for users who are just building from source, its only an issue for contributions which the PR build is there to catch On 06/05/15 15:21, Clebert Suconic wrote: That's the kind of thing that won't happen.. people will just ignore it On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would rather have people getting issues at their code. Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it easy for users to disable it. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that build from source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build from source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, users own source etc. On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a failed PR. I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on looking at PRs for that kind of error. So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, why? On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: Just a heads up, Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the PR checks... So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un noticed without a build failure ;)
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
As it has happened.. we had a few issues on the github already that we needed to fix. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > That's the kind of thing that won't happen.. people will just ignore it > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: >> or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want >> >> >> On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: >>> >>> The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would >>> rather have people getting issues at their code. >>> >>> >>> Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it >>> easy for users to disable it. >>> >>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor >>> wrote: Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that build from source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build from source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, users own source etc. On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get > our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a > failed PR. > I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's > time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on > looking at PRs for that kind of error. > > So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. > > > Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, > why? > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: >> >> >> Just a heads up, >> >> >> Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the >> PR checks... >> >> >> So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un >> noticed without a build failure ;) > > > > > >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
That's the kind of thing that won't happen.. people will just ignore it On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: > or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want > > > On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> >> The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would >> rather have people getting issues at their code. >> >> >> Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it >> easy for users to disable it. >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor >> wrote: >>> >>> Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that build >>> from >>> source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build from >>> source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, users >>> own >>> source etc. >>> >>> >>> On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a failed PR. I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on looking at PRs for that kind of error. So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, why? On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > Just a heads up, > > > Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the > PR checks... > > > So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un > noticed without a build failure ;) >>> >> >> >> > -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would rather have people getting issues at their code. Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it easy for users to disable it. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that build from source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build from source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, users own source etc. On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a failed PR. I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on looking at PRs for that kind of error. So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, why? On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: Just a heads up, Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the PR checks... So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un noticed without a build failure ;)
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would rather have people getting issues at their code. Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it easy for users to disable it. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: > Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that build from > source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build from > source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, users own > source etc. > > > On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> >> So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get >> our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a >> failed PR. >> I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's >> time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on >> looking at PRs for that kind of error. >> >> So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. >> >> >> Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, why? >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic >> wrote: >>> >>> Just a heads up, >>> >>> >>> Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the >>> PR checks... >>> >>> >>> So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un >>> noticed without a build failure ;) >> >> >> >> > -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that build from source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build from source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files, users own source etc. On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote: So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a failed PR. I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on looking at PRs for that kind of error. So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, why? On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: Just a heads up, Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the PR checks... So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un noticed without a build failure ;)
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: Exclude keystore types from RAT che...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/230 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
DB persistence with embedded ActiveMQ plugin in WASCE 3.0.0.3(Websphere application server community edition)
I am looking to achieve Oracle DB Persistence with embedded ActiveMQ plugin in WASCE 3.0.0.3(Websphere application server community edition). Looking for help to achieve DB persistence through the embedded ActiveMQ plugin. Please let me know, if anyone has tried this earlier, or any pointers for the same would be helpful. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DB-persistence-with-embedded-ActiveMQ-plugin-in-WASCE-3-0-0-3-Websphere-application-server-community-tp4696076.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
How do i connect a glassfish server 4 to an external activeMQ 5.11?
I need help with this topic please -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-do-i-connect-a-glassfish-server-4-to-an-external-activeMQ-5-11-tp4696155.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would get our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a failed PR. I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on looking at PRs for that kind of error. So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds. Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that case,, why? On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > Just a heads up, > > > Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again, and the > PR checks... > > > So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get un > noticed without a build failure ;) -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: Exclude keystore types from RAT che...
GitHub user jbertram opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/230 Exclude keystore types from RAT check You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-artemis master_work Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/230.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #230 commit 330372542bdc9d06efc4f508bee223632a7bb34d Author: jbertram Date: 2015-05-06T13:38:05Z Exclude keystore types from RAT check --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: HornetQ Protocol Support
Github user mtaylor commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/227#issuecomment-99431498 The test consisted of sending a million empty messages 5x, taking average time. The test is in no means 100% accurate as it was running on my dev laptop with other services running. The results show that running without interceptors, the test ran 700ms per million messages slower. This is obviously the lack of precision in the test as we would expect at least this to be equal or faster. If we believe that this is a serious concern then we can run more accurate benchmarks. However, I believe there is no significant over head in this approach. Results are as follows: = Without Interceptors - Produce and Consume same session/thread: Iteration Time: 58670 Iteration Time: 56232 Iteration Time: 55591 Iteration Time: 55013 Iteration Time: 55985 Average Time: 56298 Produce only: Iteration Time: 19518 Iteration Time: 18240 Iteration Time: 13952 Iteration Time: 14758 Iteration Time: 17506 Average Time: 16794 == With Interceptors - Produce and Consume same session/thread: Iteration Time: 59663 Iteration Time: 55300 Iteration Time: 54737 Iteration Time: 55259 Iteration Time: 53029 Average Time: 55597 Producer only: Iteration Time: 19566 Iteration Time: 16898 Iteration Time: 13981 Iteration Time: 15014 Iteration Time: 14881 Average Time: 16068 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: HornetQ Protocol Support
Github user andytaylor commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/227#issuecomment-99430232 personally I wouldn't have used Interceptors. Its a level of indirection that isn't really needed. I would just have used abstraction and catch the packets in extension points. It's easier to read and understand from a coding pov and we can be sure that performance isn't an issue or wont be an issue if someone changes the code. Saying that, if no one else has any misgivings then I'm happy for it to be merged. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: HornetQ Protocol Support
Github user mtaylor commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/227#issuecomment-99412764 Please hold off merging this for now. @andytaylor has asked me to do some performance testing on the usage of interceptors vs overriding methods in the ProtocolManager. I'll post back here with results. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request: CLI Create command enhancements and...
GitHub user andytaylor opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/229 CLI Create command enhancements and fixes You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-artemis master Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/229.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #229 commit 11796e0588b5801d2df6af74dfd71522585b35d3 Author: Andy Taylor Date: 2015-05-06T07:46:34Z add the ability to off set the defaul ports for the CLI create command commit 291c05bc7ee761da4a0a54a97f929c8bf858ee46 Author: Andy Taylor Date: 2015-05-06T08:00:41Z remove wilth-ssl option from CLI create command commit 32260b9be4c048b6d9779ad72f953b6a16556342 Author: Andy Taylor Date: 2015-05-06T09:59:45Z added cluster security settings to CLI create command commit 1223c1c2389633543044d88e2aa7e0b49648568d Author: Andy Taylor Date: 2015-05-06T10:04:02Z small CLI CREATE fix --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
