[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14379347#comment-14379347
]
Ariel Monaco edited comment on AMQ-5155 at 3/25/15 5:54 AM:
I've
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14379347#comment-14379347
]
Ariel Monaco commented on AMQ-5155:
---
I've tried every version >= 5.9.1 until 5.12-SNAPSHOT
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
方春柳 updated AMQ-5667:
-
Affects Version/s: (was: 5.10.0)
5.11.1
> Asynchronous sending non persistence messages,it will e
Agreed.
Preventing the existing ActiveMQ code base from moving from the 5.x to a 6.x
version is a bad thing.
We already have violated the rules of semantic versioning because of this
(e.g. the renaming of all MBeans that was not backward-compatible).
--
View this message in context:
http://ac
HornetQ taking over for ActiveMQ is a possibility whether it shares the name
of not, and nobody is arguing that it should not try. In fact, I hope I
have made it clear that I am rooting for it to continue on and take the
challenge.
The question remains - why does it have to use the ActiveMQ name
David,
It seems to me that the message does not come across as intended. I
don't see why releasing hornet as activemq-hornet as opposed to
activemq-6.x would doom activemq. I totally get your point and agree
with it, except the part where "amq is gonna die".
Nobody scared apollo, nobody is s
That's fine. My concerns, again, have nothing to do with the technical
merits. So again, how about changing the name to something more
appropriate (at least imho) and help the guys grow a community?
This would actually give the activemq project the option to upgrade to a
major version, if anyb
To me it means that the existing amq community doesn't want to enter the modern
world and would rather hornetQ hadn't come here. Sorry to be blunt, but it
seems to me that there's a lot more effort being expended on objecting to the
hornetQ donation and trying to get the new committers to just
Hiram, I believe you, but this has nothing to do with the ability of
building a community and hence a sustainable project.
Apollo 3 years ago (more?) was probably a technically superior option.
It has nothing to do with resistance to change. A business running
ActiveMQ in production has totall
I was just speaking to the WHY such a drastic change is needed. Not
the, 'will it succeed' :)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
> activemq6 and the future of activemq.
>
> Now it seems that you are c
But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
activemq6 and the future of activemq.
Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract
a community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking
at all about technical merits. Apollo
Look, I'm they guy who wrote most of ActiveMQ Apollo. I would not
have taken on such a task if there was not a good reason. I also
would not be welcoming the hornetq project if I did not feel it was
better path forward than Apollo. Please feel free to run the SPEC JMS
benchmark against HornetQ a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5686?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Timothy Bish resolved AMQ-5686.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 5.12.0
Assignee: Timothy Bish
Thanks for pointing that
That's all marketing. Are there metrics to back it up?
Last I understood, there is a very strong community using ActiveMQ.
Old isn't much of an argument. For example, it was built before NIO, and
yet it now supports NIO.
Are there more specifics? Feedback on which no action can be taken is
pu
As a follow up question, is there a good reason to not have HornetQ in the name?
It clearly lets users know its different, will help them when
searching for historical solutions to setup/configs.
-J
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
> I think in part the answer was given above --
It's a solution to the simple problem of having the ActiveMQ brand
remain competitive.
The architecture of ActiveMQ 5.x was created before even NIO existed.
So it has some serious competitive drawbacks. As other less popular
open source messaging system become more well known which HAVE been
deve
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5686?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Christopher L. Shannon updated AMQ-5686:
Description:
In ProxyMessageStore the method {{asyncAddTopicMessage}} does not call th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5686?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Christopher L. Shannon updated AMQ-5686:
Description:
In ProxyMessageStore the method {{asyncAddTopicMessage}} does not call th
Christopher L. Shannon created AMQ-5686:
---
Summary: ProxyMessageStore doesn't properly delegate
Key: AMQ-5686
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5686
Project: ActiveMQ
Issue
I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any
different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming.
Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference
clear, and let end users make informed
I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping
HornetQ does well.
The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
"It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Ap
+1 and we have already started mining some of the amq5 code and this
will continue. Whats great about HornetQ is its engine, its threading
model, io and journal. take this core and take the functionality that
amq5 has and I think you will end up with a great project and also allow
a path for future
I don't see how a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration of
ActiveMQ's future, nor why that matters to the discussion.
Wanting to engage the existing ActiveMQ community to the benefit of HornetQ
is understandable, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Especially for ActiveMQ an
I think that a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration that activemq
has no long term future. My understanding of the situation is quite limited,
but since there's already been one attempt to replace the broker (apollo) and
no attempt to modernize the existing broker, I'd guess that it
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Timothy Bish resolved AMQ-5606.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Broker now running tests using the new JMS client from QPid.
> AMQP: Update the AMQ
What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6? That question keeps
coming to mind.
At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical
perspective. But considering the community and Apache involvement, the
answer to that question becomes more complex.
Naming releases of Horne
That's what I thought too. And if I recall correctly I gave a binding +1
vote back then. Turns out that the reality is different than I
understood it.
I does feel, like James said, 'bait and switch'. Is it?
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 12:10 PM, artnaseef wrote:
Thinking about the issue of communi
Ok, so here's a question.
For various reasons I interact with management types in various
companies. On two occasions, because of my affiliation with ActiveMQ I
have been asked for advice. They've been told by sales/marketing people
over whom the PMC has no influence that activemq6 is the futu
I agree with Daniel, and think the ActiveMQ naming is fine. I would
advocate that the ActiveMQ team do a more aggressive jobs of getting the
word out about the situation, so that both the current users of ActiveMQ
5 and HornetQ (under JBoss/WildFly) are not caught off guard when the
switch-ove
Thinking about the issue of community and community-building, I agree with
Hadrian here.
HornetQ could have been its own project, built-up its own community
(including winning over members from the AMQ community who are behind it)
and started on its own footing. There's nothing that would have pr
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> Precisely. That's what I was trying to say.
> So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted, the
> consensus is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use a
> different name (activemq-hornet or somethi
Precisely. That's what I was trying to say.
So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted,
the consensus is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use
a different name (activemq-hornet or something).
True?
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 12:02 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
made the most sense here.
Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.
When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
the name wh
Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ
pmc to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that
you can
I for one do not agree with this direction the project is taking.
What are the benefits to AMQ as a project? I have heard some talk of
a "cleaner codebase" or whatever, but that sounds very subjective.
How does switching to HornetQ benefit the users of AMQ? Will their
migration be a pain? Is the
Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ
pmc to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you
can build a community around the project independent of the perception
to be an upgrade of activemq.
Then
On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
Hi dear friends,
Please advise me how to move Stuck messages from one queue to another queue.
Thanks
Mayank Agarwal
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Move-Stuck-message-from-one-queue-to-another-tp4693646.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list arc
That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
independently on the same mailing list.
More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a
new RC based
Hi David,
I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that I
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/195
---
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
GitHub user andytaylor opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/195
doc fixes
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-6 docs
Alternatively you can review and apply these change
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/194
---
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
Kevin Richards created AMQ-5685:
---
Summary: Purge does not work when simple authorisation plugin is
used
Key: AMQ-5685
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5685
Project: ActiveMQ
Issu
We have already started adapting code from ActiveMQ 5, the
activemq-selector module for instance was taken straight from ActiveMQ 5
and the Openwire protocol is also supported. I for one will be pro
active in building the community and hope that in the future we receive
contributions from many and
Github user andytaylor commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/193#issuecomment-85427585
improved via https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/194
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub a
GitHub user andytaylor opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/194
disabled RAT plugin by default
disabled RAT plugin by default and updated the docs for releasing
explaining how to enable it.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running
48 matches
Mail list logo
