[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13875562#comment-13875562
]
Arthur Naseef commented on AMQ-4970:
Last of the small updates.
After pulling down the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13875543#comment-13875543
]
Arthur Naseef commented on AMQ-4970:
Thanks for the input Gary (sorry I missed it earlie
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13875540#comment-13875540
]
Arthur Naseef commented on AMQ-4970:
Two starts of the queue. FIRST STACK is the trace
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13875480#comment-13875480
]
Arthur Naseef commented on AMQ-4970:
Hmm:
{noformat}
DEBUG | localhost adding destinati
I said console in my statement, not web console. You need a way to manage
stuff.
On Friday, January 17, 2014, Christian Posta
wrote:
> well, karaf does ship with a console, the command-line shell.
>
> but i think we're talking about the web console.
>
> in 2.3.3, i don't see a webconsole shippe
well, karaf does ship with a console, the command-line shell.
but i think we're talking about the web console.
in 2.3.3, i don't see a webconsole shipped in the distro:
http://pastebin.com/zepcUHMX
in 3.0.0 i don't either:
http://pastebin.com/cfV3yG0Z
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Hadrian
It has the tui on by default
On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Karaf ships with a console
>
> Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.
>
> >
> > On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies
Rob, that's not quite correct. Karaf *ships with a console*, ActiveMQ
also ships with a console. The issue we are discussing now is the distro
content, right?
Hadrian
On 01/17/2014 05:07 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman wrote:
Karaf ships with a console
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman wrote:
> Karaf ships with a console
Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.
>
> On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. My point wa
Karaf ships with a console
On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
> > comes with ActiveMQ. A messaging "product" should have its own
> > console, if it
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13875232#comment-13875232
]
Arthur Naseef commented on AMQ-4970:
Huh, that's interesting Timothy. I wonder what's d
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4972?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13875213#comment-13875213
]
Timothy Bish commented on AMQ-4972:
---
Looking at the test it seems like it only ever passed
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13875177#comment-13875177
]
Timothy Bish commented on AMQ-4970:
---
Tried the test using trunk code, could not reproduce
i was getting conversion error for the followng:
def queueCursor(collectionKey: Long, seq:Long)(func: (Message)=>Boolean) =
{
collectionCursor(collectionKey, encodeLong(seq)) { (key, value) =>
val seq = decodeLong(key)
info("Seq read: %L", seq)
Had to change the argument from %L
On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman wrote:
> Agreed. My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
> comes with ActiveMQ. A messaging "product" should have its own
> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
I don’t buy in to that at all - having to h
On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:18, James Carman wrote:
> Can we get a rundown of the issues with the current console? I don't
> really see a lot of traffic on here complaining about it. Nobody has
> really touched it in a long time, right? So, why not get some folks
> who are interested in it to work
Hadrian awesome job and you rock.
I will report this at the board meeting in Feb.
Thanks dudes
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Mattmann
chris.mattm...@gmail.com
-Original Message-
From: Hadrian Zbarcea
Reply-To:
Date: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:09 AM
To:
Subject: Re
>
> Another -1 for the idea of not including users/devs/committers in this poll.
> Their voice counts.
Yes - not ideal but if we can’t get consensus amongst a smaller group, there’s
no hope of a larger one. So just starting small to see what happens.
>
>
>
> On 01/17/2014 08:33 AM, Robert D
Chris, agree. Yesterday I committed Dan Kulp's patch that reverts back
to the original ActiveMQ console. At this point, the hawt.io console is
not in the trunk and won't be in the next release in this shape. The
only release that shipped with the hawt.io console is 5.9.0, but that's
not much we
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4977?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Timothy Bish resolved AMQ-4977.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 5.10.0
Assignee: Timothy Bish
I've committed a small t
Hi Everyone,
I reported at the board meeting two days ago that you guys
are making steps towards addressing this. The big issue that
still remains is that hawtio in its current form unbranded
as the default Apache ActiveMQ console must be fixed ASAP and
addressed. *How* that is done is currently b
Hi Guys,
hawtio in its current form as part of Apache ActiveMQ is a blocker for
releasing Apache ActiveMQ -- from a branding and foundation perspective --
period.
Steps made towards addressing that in the near term which may include
removing it until it is properly branded, or shipping various pr
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQNET-422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13874928#comment-13874928
]
Imran commented on AMQNET-422:
--
Would be great if this patch could be applied to Trunk please
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQNET-413?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13874927#comment-13874927
]
Imran commented on AMQNET-413:
--
We are also having the same issue. Any update on this? Or ide
Agreed. My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
comes with ActiveMQ. A messaging "product" should have its own
console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers".
Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
primary concern. ActiveMQ sho
James,
5. Is just business as usual, why should it be part of the poll? Users
raise an issue, it gets fixed.
My $0.02,
Hadrian
On 01/17/2014 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
1. -1
2. -1
3. -1
4. +1
5. Resurrect the "old" console and bring it up-to-date, fixing any
outstanding bugs - +1
On Fr
1. -1
2. -1
3. -1
4. +1
5. Resurrect the "old" console and bring it up-to-date, fixing any
outstanding bugs - +1
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies wrote:
> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has
> varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a us
Gary, agree. 5.9.1 will have to have its own branch. The question is
where should we start branching. I think starting at a stable point on
the trunk is ok. It includes the leveldb fixes and I don't see a problem
with extra fixes going in. It's not the only way though. Any other
preferences/tho
Can we get a rundown of the issues with the current console? I don't
really see a lot of traffic on here complaining about it. Nobody has
really touched it in a long time, right? So, why not get some folks
who are interested in it to work on it? I'd be willing to help with
it.
On Fri, Jan 17,
[1] +1 -- this gives the user choice -- if they choose the old
console, they accept the risks by doing so
[2] -1 -- this still endorses the old console, which should be treated
as deprecated, EOL, and removed
[3] 0 -- this seems to be a huge can of worms, yet probably beneficial
for the community
[
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has
> varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards
> consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it
> to bin
pulling out hawtio is not a prerequisite for a 5.9.1, a move like that
needs a 5.10.
5.9.1 had a focus on leveldb replication, but there have been a bunch
of more changes on trunk.
Either 5.9.1 gets its own branch with selective changes or we skip and
go with 5.10 when it is ready.
personally I th
[1] +1 This would let users choose which console they want.
[2] -1 I think having 2 distros would just add confusion for end users.
[3] 0 As long as it's ActiveMQ branded, then it works for me.
[4] -1 The original console is a liability that I'd rather not carry anymore.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13874873#comment-13874873
]
Gary Tully commented on AMQ-4970:
-
great work tracking this down. How does the expiration th
[1] -1 (not a great idea to remove something still used and useful)
[2] +1 (status quo)
[3] -1 (unless relevant parts were donated to the ASF)
[4] +1 (status quo)
Another -1 for the idea of not including users/devs/committers in this
poll. Their voice counts.
Hadrian
On 01/17/2014 08:33 AM,
Hi Gary,
I think there is consensus that hawt.io cannot stay in this form. As I
mentioned in another thread, I volunteered to release 5.9.1 and there
were no objections. The rationale for this commit is to prepare for the
release.
For 5.10.0 we will agree on a solution and we'll go with that
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Arthur Naseef updated AMQ-4970:
---
Attachment: AMQ4970Test.zip
Attaching updated test project - this one fails 100% of the time with a 2
[1] 0
[2] -1
[3] +1
[4] -1
On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies wrote:
> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has
> varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards
> consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise,
[1] +1
[2] -1
[3] 0
[4] -1
On 01/17/2014 08:33 AM, Robert Davies wrote:
I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has
varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards
consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we kee
On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Robert Davies wrote:
>>
>> Not sure what a vote would accomplish that this discussion hasn’t already
>> shown.It looks to me like there is consensus to move the console to a
>> sub project thing (I suppose a vote on that might make sense to verify), but
>> it
[1] +1
[2] -1 since we'd be effectively endorsing deprecated, dead code which is
potentially a security risk. I'd change this to a 0 if we clearly called
the distro "apache-activemq-deprecated-distro" or something to highlight
users are using dead, unmaintained code that probably has security
vulne
[1] +1
[2] -1
[3] +1
[4] -1
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
--
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
dbosa...@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
>
I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has
varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards
consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to
binding votes only ?
1. Have one distribution with no default c
This seems to be premature. Is it a -1 of the original commit? in
which case what is the justification?
Otherwise I don't see any consensus in the discussion. Did I miss something?
Why not invest some time in rebranding/skinning the new console with a
war overlay?
If that is impossible (some techni
>
> Not sure what a vote would accomplish that this discussion hasn’t already
> shown.It looks to me like there is consensus to move the console to a sub
> project thing (I suppose a vote on that might make sense to verify), but it
> also looks like there is at least one PMC member that fee
On Jan 17, 2014, at 4:32 AM, Robert Davies wrote:
> This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then
> there’s not really much difference either. There does seem to be general
> consensus amongst the poor folks who actually maintain the old console (me
> included) it sho
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4971?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13874691#comment-13874691
]
Gary Tully commented on AMQ-4971:
-
glad that the networkConnector prefetch value is working
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4971?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13874616#comment-13874616
]
Nikolay Martynov commented on AMQ-4971:
---
Prefetch was already set to 1 for all destina
This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then there’s
not really much difference either. There does seem to be general consensus
amongst the poor folks who actually maintain the old console (me included) it
should die quickly, but I think we should keep it around optiona
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4974?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kevin Earls resolved AMQ-4974.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Removed.
> Remove NetworkConnectionsCleanedupTest?
>
50 matches
Mail list logo
