Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Christian Schneider < > ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > >> I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing >> goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies market

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

On 12/8/16 11:35 AM, Christian Schneider wrote: I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies marketing pushes for a major release based on a feature set as they think they can sell it better. As an open

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: > I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing > goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies marketing > pushes for a major release based on a feature set as they think they can > sell it bet

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies marketing pushes for a major release based on a feature set as they think they can sell it better. As an open source project ActiveMQ/Artemis has the luxury to

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

Gotcha.. that sounds good. Thanks. On 12/8/16 11:05 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: I think Christian's issue is not with feature parity being a marketing goal but the fact that you aligned a major bump with a feature set rather than API changes etc. we have had this conversation a couple of times and a

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

I think Christian's issue is not with feature parity being a marketing goal but the fact that you aligned a major bump with a feature set rather than API changes etc. we have had this conversation a couple of times and altho its a good idea the discussion just goes of on all tangents since everyon

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

Christian- Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1 goal is to kick off a conversation. I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For Artemis to be a suitable up

Re: [DISCUSS] Human unit on broker.xml

I've did some researches about that, and native class of java maybe satisfying the expectations: Example 1: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16968587/java-convert-human-readable-size-to-bytes/33288820#33288820 Example 2: http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/77697/convert-a-formatted-fi

Re: [DISCUSS] Human unit on broker.xml

@Fabio do you know of any apache licensed libraries that can be used for that? or we would need to make the calculation ourselves? I On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: > good idea > > On 8 December 2016 at 11:52, Fabio Gomes dos Santos > wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I've opened AR

Re: [DISCUSS] Human unit on broker.xml

good idea On 8 December 2016 at 11:52, Fabio Gomes dos Santos wrote: > Hi guys, > > I've opened ARTEMIS-873, and here ask "you what you think about that > feature". > It's very annoying to be calculating bytes. > > > -- > Fábio Santos > supergr...@gmail.com >

Re: Rights to edit the wiki

Done, you should be able to make modifications to the pages now. On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Stéphane Deraco wrote: > Hi all, > > Could you please grant me edit rights on the wiki? I already have sent the > ICLA, and my name (Stéphane Deraco) is listed on this page > http://people.apache.org

Rights to edit the wiki

Hi all, Could you please grant me edit rights on the wiki? I already have sent the ICLA, and my name (Stéphane Deraco) is listed on this page http://people.apache.org/unlistedclas.html. I have seen some minor typos, or dead links I would like to fix (like the link in http://activemq.apache.org/jd

Re: [DISCUSS] Questions: testing compatibility test with older version on a POJO

Nice idea. :). I can the use simple OSGI stuff i guess. I will still need to figure out but I know where to look. Thanks. On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:34 AM Hiram Chirino wrote: > Try storing the 1.5.0 encoded buffer as a resource file in your test. > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Cleber

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.14.2

Results of the ActiveMQ 5.14.2 vote: Vote passes with 5 +1 binding votes. The following votes were received: Binding: +1 Timothy Bish +1 Christopher Shannon +1 Claus Ibsen +1 Clebert Suconic +1 Jim Gomes Non Binding: +1 Jean-Baptiste Onofre I'll start pushing out the release bundles and updat

Re: [DISCUSS] distribute binary in .deb and .rpm

Having a rpm and .deb is a great idea. Anyone knows how the release and distribution process would work for those including signing? I will do some research on Apache website later today. On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:16 AM Fabio Gomes dos Santos wrote: > Hi! > > > > We have two ways to do that

Re: [DISCUSS] Questions: testing compatibility test with older version on a POJO

Try storing the 1.5.0 encoded buffer as a resource file in your test. On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > I need to write a test where the binary output would need to be > checked against an older version of a class. > > > The test would be something like: > > > { >Messa

[DISCUSS] distribute binary in .deb and .rpm

Hi! We have two ways to do that: 1 - Using a plugin on maven: http://www.mojohaus.org/rpm-maven-plugin/ http://mojo.codehaus.org/deb-maven-plugin 2 - Using the default way of each distribution (using .spec) Fedora/RHEL: https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/ Debian: https://wiki.debian.o

[DISCUSS] Human unit on broker.xml

Hi guys, I've opened ARTEMIS-873, and here ask "you what you think about that feature". It's very annoying to be calculating bytes. -- Fábio Santos supergr...@gmail.com

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

I think trying to address everything on your list in a single release is probably a little ambitious. However, a major goal for Artemis is to try to fill many of those feature gaps as possible (or at least offer similar features that address the same use cases). It'd be great if your notes were c

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features

I agree a major bump should only be required when breakages appear in APIs or incompatability of existing client applications. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about what features people would like in upcoming releases. On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > A