Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2199
@clebertsuconic I think that using a near-to-deprecation feature to solve
the issue can be avoided:
https://github.com/franz1981/activemq-artemis/tree/mmap_ro_2_read_journal
It is a
Thanks Tim. It appears that the code is generated from some groovy
scripts, the javadocs says "NOTE!: This file is auto generated - do
not modify! if you need to make a change, please see the modify the
groovy scripts in the under src/gram/script and then use maven
openwire:generate to regenerate t
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2231
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2213
---
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2199
@morefuntang / @franz1981 what's the status here?
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2219
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2233
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2234
---
GitHub user clebertsuconic opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2234
ARTEMIS-2021 NetworkHealthCheck should only restart servers when net
failures happened
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://g
GitHub user jbertram opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2233
ARTEMIS-2020 Use prefixes when useJNDI=false in RA
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS
Github user mtaylor commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
@michaelandrepearce grand. Yes that is what I was concerned about.
Merged. Thanks
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2228
LGTM
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
@mtaylor i was editing my comment sorry with the output when your fix would
be regressed:
The other tests will run when run via maven if thats what you're worried
about
Github user mtaylor commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
OK. I was trying to avoid that, hence why I choose 100 bytes the first
time round. But I think you're right, it will only crash when this issue is
reintroduced, in that case we catch and
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
@mtaylor yes it will crash, it OOM's, but then at least you know the build
isnt good, and would be picked up and avoid it being regressed, which is the
point of test suite.
--
Github user mtaylor commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
@michaelandrepearce Are you sure this doesn't cause the test suite to
crash?
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227
@mtaylor see https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232 please.
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
@mtaylor here is updated test that will catch (by the test going OOM) if
the byte[] is initialized, and the validity check isnt done first. I checked
and unit test fails without
GitHub user michaelandrepearce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2232
ARTEMIS-1482 Enhance test to ensure len check is done before byte[] init
Set the int to Integer.MAX_VALUE thus if the len check is not done before
byte[] initialization the tes
Results of the Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 vote:
Vote passes with 4 +1 binding votes.
The following votes were received:
Binding:
+1 Timothy Bish
+1 Christopher Shannon
+1 Jeff Genender
+1 Arthur Naseef
Non-Binding
+1 Jamie Goodyear
+1 Robbie Gemmell
I'll start pushing out the release bundles and
On 08/08/2018 08:54 PM, Andreas Junius wrote:
Hi,
This page
http://activemq.apache.org/openwire-version-2-specification.html
claims that "OpenWire Version 2 is not the latest version". It links
to another page that shows a table that lists configuration parameters
but none of the "additional fie
Github user cshannon commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2231
Looks good to me
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2187#discussion_r208923062
--- Diff:
artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/ActiveMQSessionContext.java
---
@@ -18
Github user michaelandrepearce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2217
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2231
@cshannon this is what i was thinking, in regards to our discussion on
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2229
---
GitHub user michaelandrepearce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2231
ARTEMIS-2019 - Seperate ServerPlugin Interfaces
Seperate plugin interface by area, all extending a base interface.
Update code to check and call only plugins implementing s
+1 (non-binding)
Cheers,
Jamie
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:39 PM Arthur Naseef wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Thanks Chris. I'll look forward to getting this updated in the next
> release then.
>
> (apologies if this message is a duplicate)
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2229
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2229
Cool ill see if i can knock something up.
Ill merge this a bit later today if no other commenta
---
Github user cshannon commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2229
I like the idea of using separate interfaces and having
ActiveMQServerPlugin extend them. This way if someone doesn't care they can
make it easy and just extend ActiveMQServerPlugin (as
Github user mtaylor commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2227
@michaelandrepearce I agree, if you can come up with an appropriate test it
would be beneficial. The reason the test still passed was due to the IOOB
exception being moved to a different
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2187#discussion_r208837845
--- Diff:
artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/ActiveMQSessionContext.java
---
@@ -18
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2229
Looks good to me.
Not to affect this PR, but a general comment that we should start thinking
about, there now is a case that by having one broker plugin that it will be
35 matches
Mail list logo
