[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #579: Remove redundant type arguments, add sev...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/579


---
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 issue #579: Remove redundant type arguments, add sevntu-che...

[clebertsuconic]

Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/579
  
Oh.. wow.. you already did it.. awesome!


---
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 #580: ARTEMIS-568 Catch broken JMS selector ex...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/580


---
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 #580: ARTEMIS-568 Catch broken JMS selector ex...

[tabish121]

GitHub user tabish121 opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/580

ARTEMIS-568 Catch broken JMS selector expressions

Enforce an EOF on the expression so the selector parser keeps going and
catches the broken selector statement.

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/tabish121/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-568

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/580.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 #580


commit 5c29cc9a28b8dde1937c29cd8cd06c2d9def70f8
Author: Timothy Bish 
Date:   2016-06-14T23:05:27Z

ARTEMIS-568 Catch broken JMS selector expressions

Enforce an EOF on the expression so the selector parser keeps going and
catches the broken selector statement.




---
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 issue #579: Remove redundant type arguments, add sevntu-che...

[clebertsuconic]

Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/579
  
@scop  Here is my PR: 
https://github.com/sevntu-checkstyle/sevntu.checkstyle/pull/203

it was replaced by another pr:

https://github.com/sevntu-checkstyle/sevntu.checkstyle/issues/321


---
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 issue #579: Remove redundant type arguments, add sevntu-che...

[clebertsuconic]

Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/579
  
@scop  Since you are adding Seventu, can I ask you a favour?


I had this on the checkstyle: 
org.hornetq.checks.annotation.RequiredAnnotation,


Which I started as a PR on Seventu. I have written a PR for them, but I 
couldn't finish it because they had too many requirements, and I didn't have 
time to finish, so I think someone took over my contribution and finished into 
Seventu.


Can you check on replacing my RequiredAnnotations by the one on Seventu, 
which I believe my contribution has made into there? if you can't just let me 
know and I will find some time to do it later this week.


---
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: Use software for "no Evil"

[Clebert Suconic]

I was just reading about it.

The only requirement I see is not to break the API contract on management.

Most of the JSON we have is for management responses, where we return
objects as JSON Arrays or JSON Objects.

Apparently using JSONP would change the responses we have on management?

Changing this to JSON-P would apparently mean we have to add a
function name to the return?

i.e... say... getConnectionsAsJSON currently returns this on the MBean Console:

[{"creationTime":1465943892043,"connectionID":"-1350038013","clientAddress":"/127.0.0.1:64627"},{"creationTime":1465943895399,"connectionID":"1668184153","clientAddress":"/127.0.0.1:64628"}]



apparently it would start to return something with a function name:
that is: getConnectionsAsJSON([..])


Which would be an incompatible change for a point release.


If we can use the library you mentioned but keeping the same output
through management without breaking a contract like this, it would be
fine.


How do you see it?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:30 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> Clebert,
>
> Would you be interested in an impl based on the JSON-P spec?  If so maybe
> Johnzon would be a solution here.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:21 PM Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
>> Accordingly to apache legal, we can use JSON on our codebase, however
>> other projects may be unable to redistribute your code if you use this
>> license because of the:
>>
>> "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."
>>
>> (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#json)
>>
>>
>> So, Fedora guys are asking us to replace this on Artemis.
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-565)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I looked at HBase and they have been through the same path apparently,
>> where they replaced it by
>> https://code.google.com/archive/p/json-simple/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> More fun reading at: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-565
>>
>>
>>
>> Any volunteer to make the change? :)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: Artemis: Use software for "no Evil"

[John D. Ament]

Clebert,

Would you be interested in an impl based on the JSON-P spec?  If so maybe
Johnzon would be a solution here.

John

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:21 PM Clebert Suconic 
wrote:

> Accordingly to apache legal, we can use JSON on our codebase, however
> other projects may be unable to redistribute your code if you use this
> license because of the:
>
> "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."
>
> (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#json)
>
>
> So, Fedora guys are asking us to replace this on Artemis.
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-565)
>
>
>
>
>
> I looked at HBase and they have been through the same path apparently,
> where they replaced it by
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/json-simple/
>
>
>
>
> More fun reading at: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-565
>
>
>
> Any volunteer to make the change? :)
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>

Artemis: Use software for "no Evil"

[Clebert Suconic]

Accordingly to apache legal, we can use JSON on our codebase, however
other projects may be unable to redistribute your code if you use this
license because of the:

"The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."

(http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#json)


So, Fedora guys are asking us to replace this on Artemis.
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-565)





I looked at HBase and they have been through the same path apparently,
where they replaced it by
https://code.google.com/archive/p/json-simple/




More fun reading at: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-565



Any volunteer to make the change? :)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: Active MQ Performance

[Clebert Suconic]

Artemis is an initiative to make a new broker with similar features to
ActiveMQ5 which is getting closer and closer each day.


I would say It's worth giving it a try. 1.3.0 just passed the voting,
you should see the announcement soon for the release.


On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:56 AM, ActiveMQ Investigation
 wrote:
> Hello Celebert,
>
> I am using apache-activemq-5.12.1.
>
> I found out the issue. My subscribers were on same machine as ActiveMQ
> install. While 5 subscribers, consuming messages on same machine as install,
> it was quite intensive. I moved subscribers to a separate machine than
> install and it took 9 seconds to send messages and almost similar to
> receive. This is about persistent messages.
>
> For non persistent, in new setup, it takes 1.7 seconds which is acceptable.
> However, consumer (gets all msgs in 6 seconds) in  is showing messages
> waiting for 1+ seconds.
>
>
> For SonicMQ, time taken is consistent irrespective of consumer on machine
> where sonic install is there.
>
>
> I feel that this 9 second is still high for sending 25000 msgs. It can do
> better. Also, can this CPU and memory intensiveness improved.
>
> I will go through Artemis. Sorry for naive query but how different Artemis
> is to ActiveMQ. I haven't explored that front.
>
> Thanks
> AJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
> AJ
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Active-MQ-Performance-tp4712952p4712960.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.3.0

[Martyn Taylor]

Results of the Apache Artemis 1.3.0 release vote.

Vote passes with 4 binding +1 votes.

The following votes were received:

Binding:
+1 Claus Ibsen
+1 Christopher Shannon
+1 Timothy Bish
+1 Hiram Chirino

Non Binding:
+1 Martyn Taylor
+1 Fabio Gomes dos Santos
+1 Andy Taylor
+1 Clebert Suconic
+1 Robbie Gemmell

Thank you to everyone who contributed and took the time to review the
release candidates and vote.

I'll move forward with the getting the release out and updating the
relevant documentation.

Regards

Re: Active MQ Performance

[ActiveMQ Investigation]

Hello Celebert,

I am using apache-activemq-5.12.1. 

I found out the issue. My subscribers were on same machine as ActiveMQ
install. While 5 subscribers, consuming messages on same machine as install,
it was quite intensive. I moved subscribers to a separate machine than
install and it took 9 seconds to send messages and almost similar to
receive. This is about persistent messages.

For non persistent, in new setup, it takes 1.7 seconds which is acceptable.
However, consumer (gets all msgs in 6 seconds) in  is showing messages
waiting for 1+ seconds.


For SonicMQ, time taken is consistent irrespective of consumer on machine
where sonic install is there.


I feel that this 9 second is still high for sending 25000 msgs. It can do
better. Also, can this CPU and memory intensiveness improved.

I will go through Artemis. Sorry for naive query but how different Artemis
is to ActiveMQ. I haven't explored that front.

Thanks
AJ









Thanks
AJ



--
View this message in context: 
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Active-MQ-Performance-tp4712952p4712960.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Active MQ Performance

[Clebert Suconic]

What version ?

Can you try Artemis ?

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, ActiveMQ Investigation <
ajay.ku...@winterflood.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am doing some raw performance tests on ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ (JMS
> based) on C++ side. We have CMS using OpenWire.
> My test has got five Non Durable subscribers on a Topic. When I send 25000
> messages, following happens:
>
> 1. Persistent - It takes 3 times (27sec) more than what it takes on SonicMQ
> (9sec). I need to find out what's causing this delay and how to improve it.
> I understand that publisher will wait until broker comes back to ack
> messages. I am using Auto_ACK. I have looked at SonicMQ settings for IO
> Buffer and socket buffer and do the same for ActiveMQ but no success.
>
>
> 2. Non Persistent - This one is faster as fire and forget but messages are
> sometime 2 seconds in flight on subscriber which is unacceptable to our use
> case. I tried setting prefetch etc thinking it's slow consumer but no
> success.
>
> Hardware is same for both. ActiveMQ install is default installation. I am
> going through performance tuning guide mentioned in the forum but any quick
> clues / areas to look at will be appreciated.
>
> Sorry if my query is too subjective but I want to find out where ActiveMQ
> is
> taking time and why. I have done raw tests just using stomp on ActiveMQ (No
> CPP involved) and it was way faster as compared to Sonic. So I suspect, I
> need to tweak some settings which may be causing it.
>
>
> Thanks
> AJ
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Active-MQ-Performance-tp4712952.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.3.0

[Robbie Gemmell]

On 9 June 2016 at 14:03, Martyn Taylor  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.3.0 release.
>
> Since 1.2.0 we've had a lot of fixes and improvements:
>
> * The OpenWire protocol implementation is now feature complete.
> * Equivalent implementations of all ActiveMQ 5.x JAAS modules are now
> available.
> * An initial implementation of JDBC journal and JDBC storage for Large
> Message store has been added.
>   - Current support for PostGres, MySQL and Derby
> * Lots of improvements to the replication HA policy.
> * Improvements to performance.
> * Many more bug fixes.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920=12328978
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1095/org/apache/activemq/apache-artemis/1.3.0/
>
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1095/org/apache/activemq/apache-artemis/1.3.0/
>
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1095/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-artemis.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/1.3.0
>
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache Artemis 1.3.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
> Martyn


+1 (non-binding)

I downloaded the src+bin archives, checked LICENCE+NOTICE present,
verified signatures, gave the broker binary a kick of the tyres with
an AMQP client.

Robbie

Active MQ Performance

[ActiveMQ Investigation]

Hello,

I am doing some raw performance tests on ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ (JMS
based) on C++ side. We have CMS using OpenWire. 
My test has got five Non Durable subscribers on a Topic. When I send 25000
messages, following happens:

1. Persistent - It takes 3 times (27sec) more than what it takes on SonicMQ
(9sec). I need to find out what's causing this delay and how to improve it. 
I understand that publisher will wait until broker comes back to ack
messages. I am using Auto_ACK. I have looked at SonicMQ settings for IO
Buffer and socket buffer and do the same for ActiveMQ but no success.


2. Non Persistent - This one is faster as fire and forget but messages are
sometime 2 seconds in flight on subscriber which is unacceptable to our use
case. I tried setting prefetch etc thinking it's slow consumer but no
success.

Hardware is same for both. ActiveMQ install is default installation. I am
going through performance tuning guide mentioned in the forum but any quick
clues / areas to look at will be appreciated.

Sorry if my query is too subjective but I want to find out where ActiveMQ is
taking time and why. I have done raw tests just using stomp on ActiveMQ (No
CPP involved) and it was way faster as compared to Sonic. So I suspect, I
need to tweak some settings which may be causing it.


Thanks
AJ




--
View this message in context: 
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Active-MQ-Performance-tp4712952.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.