http://activemq.apache.org/ is live :-)
No we need to remove the "Incubator" stuff from it :-)
-Brian
On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I am under the impression that the open wire protocol should
always be able to maintain backward compatibility.
Does this mean that we will never change the major version ;-)
That is okay by me! If we stop using major to represent wire forma
On Jan 23, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
The latest development is being done on ActiveMQ 4.2 - however
there are a lot of improvements between 4.1 and 4.2 - namely:
1. Use of Java 5
2. Message cursors for persistent messages
3. Spooling of temporary messages id broker memory is full
Doh! I have been so pre-occupied with work I didn't mention. Bad me!
We graduated! Now to start pestering infra... ;-)
-Brian
On Jan 22, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Yeah, I was expecting the board resolution to be voted, as I'm not
sure it is yet ... In all cases, I guess the ne
On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Hey guys,
I was just looking at the stomp transport and noticed what appears
to be an
undocumented extension to stomp adding a header for subscription ID
(literally the string "id" on the wire) to the subscribe and
unsubscribe
frames. I
I am all for it, personally, with 1.6 due out any week now.
-Brian
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi folks,
How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
has a much better set of co
I've applied Dejan's patch locally, but it needs some changes to
preserve the current behavior. I'll make them and check it in within
a couple days.
-Brian
On Oct 6, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Brian McCallister wrote:
D'oh, I did miss it, and it is a better solution :-)
I&#x
I'll be there!
-Brian
On Oct 7, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Hey everyone,
Just wondering who was going from the ActiveMQ crowd. Tim Bish and I
received the approval to take a company-sponsored boondoggle for
our first
ApacheCon :) ... should be a good opportunity to put names w
+1
-Brian
On Sep 26, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Some copyright header file issues were found in the 3rd release
candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut and RC 4 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes
and it's available here:
http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.
(Replying at top as it is a long message :-)
The mapping be configured by naming a "converter" of some kind in the
activemq.xml
This is a bit tricksier than it might be because the activemq.xml is
just a specialized spring config which reads a lot of stuff from a
URL syntax, and adding Ja
Hmm, I can look into this but won't have a good opportunity to until
after September 9 (a week and half from now). If you dig into the
stomp transport stuff, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to put in,
but... that is a guesstimate.
If it hasn't been done by Sept 9 I can dig through, but
On Aug 16, 2006, at 12:32 AM, James Strachan wrote:
On 8/16/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The ActiveMQ committers have decided to aim for TLP status (1), as
such we need to get a PPMC in place. Thus far we have been working
under a "committer votes all count&quo
The ActiveMQ committers have decided to aim for TLP status (1), as
such we need to get a PPMC in place. Thus far we have been working
under a "committer votes all count" style (really, everyone's vote
counts, it is on a public list without any of the "mine is binding"
stuff that has become
I'd like to start the ball rolling to have ActiveMQ graduate to a top
level project at Apache.
The original intent was to become a sub-project of Geronimo, but I
think that this would be a disservice to ActiveMQ, which is quite
capable of standing on it's own, and therefore, should be a pro
Hmm, are there any up to date docs on ActiveCluster? I haven't looked
at it since, er, 1.0? Is it still used anywhere?
-Brian
Adrian,
ActiveMQ is not officially certified on any platform, though we
(ActiveMQ developers, or at least me) will certainly try to help you
out on pretty much any platform we can.
The best thing to do is to download the source distribution and run
the test suite. It is pretty comprehensi
FYI: http://www.infoq.com/news/amq
AMQP looks to be an attempt at wire protocol specification like
openwire or stomp.
Probably good for us to look at, though the licensing probably needs
to bounce through [EMAIL PROTECTED] before we do much as it is not
immediately clear if it is okay. I
+1
Releasing every couple weeks may be a BIT fast though. Perhaps if we
have that many outstanding bugs we should rethink how we do release
stabilisation?
On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Adrian Co wrote:
+1 Release ActiveMQ 4.0.1
Regards,
Adrian Co
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Since the 4.0 releas
+1
-Brian
On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I'd like ActiveMQ to have follow the release early and release often
mantra. So what do you guys think about getting a 4.0.1 release done
by early next week? We have already done quite a few bug fixes in the
4.0 branch and I don't
On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
So here's a link to everything that is in the spec currently:
http://stomp.codehaus.org/Protocol
It's a WIKI so you can edit it and improve the spec. I think that a
the big missing piece in the spec is that there is no specification of
how ST
On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:42 PM, James Strachan wrote:
On 6/13/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So it sounds like we're all in agreement on the content-type
header. For
text, it would be something like "text"
There could be a few values of Content-type which map to text
(text/xm
On Jun 13, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
The think your views are a bit STOMP point of view centric. bytes
messages work fine when both end assume you are just moving around
bytes messages.. and it's true everything can eventually converted
down to a byte[].
Yes, and no. I want to s
the standard header that any Stomp-JMS bridge
would use to decide if something is a TextMessage or a BytesMessage?
On 6/13/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that clears things up for me a bit - what you're proposing
makes
sense. I'll poke around today and see wh
Is this a vote?
On May 8, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi folks,
I significant bug has poped up and been fixed since the last 4.0
build. It was possible to get a ClassCastException when using the
failover transport and using temporary topics. Also some minor fixes
were done to the
so support some other types such as:
activemq-map, activemq-stream, and activemq-object where ActiveMQ
would define the expected body encoding for those types.
Regards,
Hiram
On 4/23/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want to correct a design wart in ActiveMQ's Stomp im
I want to correct a design wart in ActiveMQ's Stomp implementation --
originally Stomp only supported text and I implemented messages as
text messages. Later I caved and changed stomp to handle arbitrary
byte bodies, and used byte messages to handle this.
The difference, according to Active
by the way...
Stomp, itself, doesn't know the difference between queues and topics.
Everything is just a destination. The naming convention used in
ActiveMQ's implementation is just that, a naming convention to
support on-the-fly creation of things.
-Brian
On Apr 17, 2006, at 10:44 AM, M
27 matches
Mail list logo
