Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Classic "new" web console

If you are looking to use Jolokia have you thought of using HawtIO? This is what the Artemis console is built on, it would be pretty easy to bootstrap something and you get a lot out of the box for free such as Authentication etc. Just an idea! Andy On Wed, 17 Sept 2025 at 06:49, Jean-Baptiste O

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.3.0

The following binding votes were received: +1 (binding) Clebert Suconic +1 (binding) Domenico Bruscino +1 (binding) Tim Bish +1 (binding) Justin Bertram +1 (binding) Robbie Gemmel +1 (non binding) Andy Taylor Thank you to everyone who took the time to review the release candidate and vote. If

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.3.0

-Djolokia.disabledServices=org.jolokia.service.history.HistoryMBeanRequestInterceptor On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 at 10:19, Andy Taylor wrote: > You can also allow access to those HawtIO Mbeans in management.xml or if > you are just dropping the war into Artemis then add the > prop > disa

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.3.0

You can also allow access to those HawtIO Mbeans in management.xml or if you are just dropping the war into Artemis then add the prop disabledServices=org.jolokia.service.history.HistoryMBeanRequestInterceptor. On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 at 09:31, Andy Taylor wrote: > @Justin Bertram Yes I have s

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.3.0

ervice(HttpServlet.java:520) > at jakarta.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:587) > ... > > Have you seen this before? > > Is there perhaps a new Jolokia operation (i.e. updateAndAdd) that's not > accounted for in the default management.xml? >

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.3.0

distribution and deploy in a web container. 3. Replace the console war in the latest ActiveMQ Artemis release or a build from source. [ ] +1 approve this release [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Here's my +1 Andy Taylor

Heads Up Artemis Console release

Just a heads up that I will be creating a 1.3.0 release later this week Andy

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.1

thanks Robbie I have updated the website On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 at 09:22, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > I have added the files to the dist release repo and the CDN sync > appears to have occurred already, at least for me. > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 at 13:43, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > &g

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.1

add the staged release files to the dist release repo I would be grateful. I will release the maven repo and update the website when everything has synced Thanks again. Andy Taylor

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.1

gt; at http://localhost:8080/hawtio/static/js/other.bundle.js:145035:7 > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 07:37, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > I would like to propose an ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.0 release. The > main > > focus of this release is usability improvements as well as an Hawt

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.1

t ActiveMQ Artemis release or a build from source. [ ] +1 approve this release [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Here's my +1 Andy Taylor

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.0

eviously. They are 84MB > and 28MB respectively as a result, far bigger than the actual binary > output. This needs to be fixed before releasing. > > Robbie > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 09:12, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > > The following binding votes were received: +1 Clebe

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.0

The following binding votes were received: +1 Clebert Suconic +1 Tim Bish +1 Jean-Baptiste Onofré +1 Gary Tully The following non binding votes were received +1 Andy Taylor Thank you to everyone who took the time to review the release candidate and vote. A special thanks to Gašper Čefarin for his

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.0

0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Here's my +1 Andy Taylor

Heads Up ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.2.0 release

There have been quite a few fixes recently in the console so I aim to do a release sometime next week. Shout if you need me to wait for anything or have a request. Andy T

Re: Upgrading Artemis to new Console

Seems like a +1 so I will go ahead and update my PR from DRAFT and rebase On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 16:25, Domenico Francesco Bruscino < bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 LGTM > > Domenico > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 16:30, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > I would like to rais

Upgrading Artemis to new Console

I would like to raise the discussion as to whether it would be possible to upgrade Artemis to use the new Console in the next Minor release. The changes to use a new console is a significant upgrade to a component and would also require migrating Jetty from Javax to Jakarta but I think in the most

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.1.0 released

I am pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.1.0 *Downloads https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis-console/download/ *Complete list of updates https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis-console/download/release-notes-1.1.0 I would like to highlight these impro

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.1.0

thanks Robbie On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 10:26, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 09:50, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > > The vote passed with 4 binding votes and 1 non binding > > > > The following binding votes were received: > > > > +1 Justin Be

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.1.0

The vote passed with 4 binding votes and 1 non binding The following binding votes were received: +1 Justin Bertram +1 Robbie Gemmell +1 Jean-Baptiste Onofré +1 Tim Bish > The following non binding votes were received +1 Andy Taylor Thank you to everyone who took the time to review

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.1.0

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.1.0 release Highlights include - [ARTEMIS-5160] - Migrate console to PF 5 and latest hawtio - [ARTEMIS-5131] - Add A Copy message button to console The release notes can be found here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS/ver

Heads Up Artemis Console 1.1.0 release

Just a heads up I will put together a release at the end of the week. if anyone has any asks or jiras please let me know. fyi https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS/versions/12355166 is currently what is fixed Andy

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0 released

documentation see: https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis-console/ Many thanks to all who contributed to the new console. Andy Taylor

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

I will send out a corrected result On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 10:58, Andy Taylor wrote: > The vote passed with 3 Binding votes and 2 non binding > > > The following votes were received: > > Clebert Suconic > Domenico Francesco Bruscino > Timothy Bish > Robbie Gemm

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

The vote passed with 4 Binding +1 votes and 1 non-binding +1 vote. The following votes were received: Binding: Clebert Suconic Domenico Francesco Bruscino Timothy Bish Robbie Gemmell Non-binding: Andy Taylor Thanks everybody for taking the time on this release, for all the contributions and

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

The vote passed with 3 Binding votes and 2 non binding The following votes were received: Clebert Suconic Domenico Francesco Bruscino Timothy Bish Robbie Gemmel Andy Taylor Thanks everybody for taking the time on this release, for all the contributions and the time spent evaluating the

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0 release. This is RC3. This is the 1st release of the ActiveMQ Console so only has 1 jira [ARTEMIS-4680] - Upgrade the console to use HawtIO 4 The release notes can be found here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS/vers

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

t; some commits to resolve some of and commented on the rest. With the > > fixes I made in place, I also tried running the upgrade command from > > the branch to update an existing 2.37.0 instance to the modified > > variant with new console. > > > > Robbie > > > > O

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0 release. This is the 1st release of the ActiveMQ Console so only has 1 jira [ARTEMIS-4680] - Upgrade the console to use HawtIO 4 The release notes can be found here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS/versions/12354639

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

Thanks Robbie, I have dropped the release, I will add a binary distribution to fix this when I return from vacation On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 16:01, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 12:50, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemi

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0 release. This is the 1st release of the ActiveMQ Console so only has 1 jira [ARTEMIS-4680] - Upgrade the console to use HawtIO 4 The release notes can be found here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS/versions/12354639

New Artemis Console 1st release

Just a heads up that I plan to release the 1st version of the new Artemis Console [1] when I return from vacation on the 12th August.. If anyone wants to review the console for issues or if anyone wants some additions please let me know and I will address them before i build 1.0.0. 1. https://gith

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release tomorrow

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/5111 On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 10:42, Andy Taylor wrote: > I have a quick fix I would like to include for the new console, I will > send a PR soon > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 21:10, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > >> I'm thi

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release tomorrow

I have a quick fix I would like to include for the new console, I will send a PR soon On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 21:10, Clebert Suconic wrote: > I'm thinking about cutting a release tomorrow. Anyone have anything > that would push it back? > > -- > Clebert Suconic > > ---

Re: rename activemq-artemis-console-plugin repo

just to wrap things up I have now moved everything I need to so the old repo can be deleted On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 at 18:18, Andy Taylor wrote: > Many thanks Justin > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 15:43 Justin Bertram, wrote: > >> Done. Repo is available at: >> >> http

Re: rename activemq-artemis-console-plugin repo

Many thanks Justin On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 15:43 Justin Bertram, wrote: > Done. Repo is available at: > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis-console > > > Justin > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:38 AM Andy Taylor > wrote: > > > @Justin Bertram If you c

Re: rename activemq-artemis-console-plugin repo

@Justin Bertram If you could go ahead and create the new repo then give me some time to move stuff over before deleting the current one. Just to confirm the new repo name is 'activemq-artemis-console' On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 15:32, Andy Taylor wrote: > makes sense to me, lets gi

Re: rename activemq-artemis-console-plugin repo

be the quicker approach, since we can do the former ourselves whilst > the rest needs Infra to handle. They might also be more willing to > remove the other without a vote if pointed to discussion and a > replacement repo already existing. > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 12:41, An

rename activemq-artemis-console-plugin repo

Devs, Recently we had a new repo created for the new Artemis console I am working on. At the time the console was going to be a plugin similar to what we have, however after some design changes it is not more of an extension of hawtIO and not shipped as a plugin. The benefit here is that we now on

add key for releasing

PMC I need to upload a key so I can carry out some Artemis Console releases. I have added my public key to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/KEYS could someone update the actual https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/activemq/KEYS file please> Cheers Andy

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

Correct On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, 14:29 Justin Bertram, wrote: > Just to confirm...The repo name should be > "activemq-artemis-console-plugin", right? > > > Justin > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:22 AM Andy Taylor > wrote: > > > turns out I don't have

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

turns out I don't have permissions to create a repo, could someone from the PMC do this for me? On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:27, Andy Taylor wrote: > I will go ahead and request the new repo today > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:39, Timothy Bish wrote: > >> On 3/18/24 1

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

I will go ahead and request the new repo today On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:39, Timothy Bish wrote: > On 3/18/24 13:33, Andy Taylor wrote: > > so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0 > > +1 > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

Ok, lets wait a while for any further comments then go with that On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:39, Clebert Suconic wrote: > sounds good to me also. > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:36 PM Robbie Gemmell > wrote: > > > > Seems good to me > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

n. It would need to be higher than > > before to keep using the same name, but using a broker version isnt > > necessarily that obvious if we dont expect to release it on the same > > schedule as the broker. > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:46, Andy Taylor > wro

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

It would be something of the form activemq-artemis- for > consistency. Regarding , what is actually going in it, a console > 'plugin' ? > > So perhaps activemq-artemis-console-plugin ? > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 07:46, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > > Lets go wi

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

t; let us know how to adjust it? > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4856 > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 AM Justin Bertram > wrote: > > > +1 for a separate repo > > > > > > Justin > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

ar 2024 at 16:58, Clebert Suconic > > > wrote: > > > > > > Should I wait for the 2.33 release ? > > > > > > > > > See my other thread about the heads up. > > > > > > > > > Or you think this may take a lot longer ?

Upgrading the Artemis Console

The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is written using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer maintained so HawtIO (v3/4) has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also written in Typescript. I have been working in the background over the last several months to upgrad

HawtIO 2

Just a heads up that I'm in the process of upgrading to HawtIO 2, I have a wip at [1] which currently just has the branding and help, preference complete. I'll be working on the rest as a background task as I dont have much time free but I'll try to get it done in a few weeks. Th main reason for t

Re: Re: [DISCUSSION] New Quorum vote pluggable implementation

Personally I wouldn't use Zookeeper, I think there are better options. Also looks like Kafka are replacing it as well. Saying that, it doesn't really matter what is used, the main thing is we need to remove the burden of providing consensus away from the broker. It would make sense to make it plug

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis pageIterator.hasNext spends too much time in the case of no messages matched

r > side filter, that by consumer would pas lots data. he would hit same issue. > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0100, "Andy Taylor" < > andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > &g

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis pageIterator.hasNext spends too much time in the case of no messages matched

If you are dealing with subscribers not being connected for very long periods of time I would question your choice of using topics in the first place. Maybe use a different topology, 1 address/queue per consumer for instance. On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 08:50, yw yw wrote: > Thanks for the reply. I'm

Re: [DISCUSS] Component/Plugin repository

Id personally pefer a single repo per plugin, some plugins will develop quicker than others and with a single repo you would end up tagging and releasing plugins that havent changed. I dont think there is an overhead with using maven etc. I also think there should be no tight coupling between the

Re: Website

I'd be happy to help with adding content, I remember a hackathon was mentioned at one point. Any way since it's now in git it would be great if people could contribute so we can have a better website sooner rather than later. Andy On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 17:19, Martyn Taylor wrote: > The site is

Re: Use Apache ActiveMQ Artemis JDBC Persistence for production

If your using EAP I would raise this thru the Red Hat support channels. On 20 March 2018 at 09:26, swclhard wrote: > Hi all, > > So does anybody know about the state of JDBC persistence for Artemis? Is it > still experimental like written in the documentation? > > We have analyzed EAP 7.1 with A

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

I think https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1736 is a blocker as well, Ive just sent a PR with a fix On 7 March 2018 at 04:59, Michael André Pearce wrote: > @Clebert > > Someone in the user threads has raised what looks like a blocker if it’s > real. > > Something to do with large mes

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Advisory Support

definitely expand on the notifications already there, It wouldnt make sens to have 2 different implementations. What we also would need to do is replace the current advisory support that is built into the Openwire protocol with this. On 10 January 2018 at 13:19, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l

Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it

why not move the master branch to another name and then have the master branch just contain a README with some info about it being deprecated. Then if anyone comes across it they can use it if they want but understand its not maintained. Andy On 14 December 2017 at 15:25, Bruce Snyder wrote: >

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

Id be happy to spend some time helping On 12 December 2017 at 17:30, Michael André Pearce < michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > What’s 1600 pages between friends > > I agree it will be easier to covert to md than to start doing css styles. > It’s all from a wiki anyhow so it’s can’t be that

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

This probably warrants a separate thread On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth wrote: > Greetings Justin. > > Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of > ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed? > > We are working on integration o

Re: Kafka ServiceConnector

per message latencies etc. but then we can > > bridge messages from a core queue into kafka so that the data can flow to > > it as fast as possible and consumed from there also. > > > > Idea is to try make a hybrid taking best of both. > > > > Cheers > > Mike >

Re: Kafka ServiceConnector

Whats the use case here Michael, sounds like a cool idea and something that has been mentioned by different people but I am yet to understand how this could be used. On 6 October 2017 at 07:48, Michael André Pearce < michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am looking to contribute an

Re: Non Durable Queue Cleanup

Depends on the protocol Michael, which client are you using when you see this occur? On 11 July 2017 at 16:35, Michael André Pearce wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm trying to find the logic that cleans up non durable queues (jms topic > subscription). > > I can find logic with regards to auto created an

Re: [DISCUSS] - Propose new sub-project activemq-extras

The JMS connection Pool currently in ActiveMQ could live there On 9 June 2017 at 04:52, Clebert Suconic wrote: > As long as we can define a bigger scope.. otherwise wouldn't be an > overkill to start a project for this? > > What's the name? commons-messaging? > > > but there's already a commons

Re: [DISCUSS] Single version docs on Artemis

Personally, I would prefer a separate repo for the docs, its fine to have versions linked to a release but then they are set in stone. Docs are usually the last thing to get written and sometimes rushed or maybe not even in time for a release. If they were in a separate repo you could still spend t

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ utility project name

can we get it mirrored in Github? On 2 February 2017 at 15:34, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > The repository is created. > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-cli-tools.git;a=summary > > I guess the next step is to get a Jira project added for it.

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] 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: Encouraging more on-list discussions (was Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780)

On 14 November 2016 at 16:00, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > IMHO, anything that gets more discussions and more people talking on the > mailing lists is a good first step. I feel like we rarely ever hear from > Gao, Justin or Andy on list, would be nice to get them to say hi every now > and the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.3.0

+1 On 13 June 2016 at 12:58, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Fabio Gomes dos Santos < > supergr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > 2016-06-10 3:18 GMT-03:00 Claus Ibsen : > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Container-managed security in Artemis Resource Adapter

makes sense to me. On 3 June 2016 at 13:52, Jeff Mesnil wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on providing Container-managed security in Artemis > resource adapter for our app server. > > Artemis RA has been coded to support it already. If there is a > security domain specified for its resource adapter,

Re: Artemis JMX attributes are not documented

could you raise a Jira please? On 18/02/16 12:50, Lionel Cons wrote: Using Jolokia, it is very easy to list all the attributes exposed by Artemis: $ jmx4perl http://localhost:8161/jolokia/ list 'org.apache.activemq.artemis:brokerName="0.0.0.0",module=JMS,name="DLQ",serviceType=Queue,type=Brok

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp > wrote: On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor > wrote: I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposit

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

rtemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to > enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag. > > John > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite. We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time. On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

It's a configuration option in the broker.xml. however by default the cli will default to use it. Saying that it will only use it if it's libation has been installed, if it hasn't then NIO us used. On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:07 John D. Ament wrote: > Are you referring to the bin or src distribution

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Claus, fyi, Ive sent a PR with some of your suggestions, see https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/287. I'll take a look at the stuff ive missed in the new year. Merry Christmas. Andy On 21/12/15 07:45, Claus Ibsen wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:

Re: Minimum maven version to compile artemis?

Im fine with that, if no one has any objections I will go ahead and make the change. Andy On 21/12/15 23:21, John D. Ament wrote: All, I'd like to ask a broad question. What should the minimum maven version be to compile artemis? In order to fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

+1 (non binding) created and ran a server and a few examples. built from source ok. all on windows 10 On 18/12/15 17:36, Martyn Taylor wrote: Hello all. I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release. Since 1.1.0 we've had some significant improvements to performance, particularly arou

Re: Next Artemis release

On 18/11/15 21:30, Julian Scheid wrote: Hi all, I've contributed a few patches to Artemis back in September and it would be fantastic to have a release with those in it, not to mention all the other improvements that have accumulated since the last release two months ago. I'm counting about a hu

Re: Artemis OSGi: Prototype available

I'll spend some time on Monday looking at it On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:17 Christian Schneider wrote: > I created a branch on my github account that shows how we can run > Artemis in OSGi. > I started with the ueber bundle branch of Guillaume but wanted to create > a more modular solution. > > As we

Re: What forms of extension mechanisms does Artemis provide?

there is also org.apache.activemq.artemis.service.extensions.ServiceUtils which is used to load transaction managers etc when deployed within an Application Server. Andy On 18/11/15 09:32, Christian Schneider wrote: I am currently looking into some way to implement extensibility for Artemis

Re: [DISCUSS] OSGi support for Artemis

If someone identifies what packages clash I'd be happy to move them. The only concern I have is changing Api's but maybe we could have an Api jar if that's an issue. On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:33 Clebert Suconic wrote: > ahhh... same package on different JARs... ok.. I missed that. > > Yeah.. that n

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

he image by externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start the image with the external configurations.. Would that make sense? On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in variables to add to

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky. I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow the configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run, something like

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.1.0 (RC2)

-1 from me, a deadlock has been introduced into serverlocator which is pretty reproducible. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-222 Andy On 11/09/15 10:36, Dejan Bosanac wrote: +1 (binding) Ran some OpenWire and MQTT examples from 5.x distro. Everything looks good. Regards -- Dejan

Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon

> calling these minor updates. > > > > On Aug 13, 2015, at 13:03, Andy Taylor wrote: > > > > I have to disagree. We haven't really done a real major release. This > first > > one was for ip clearance and we will be adding new functionality in every &g

Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon

I have to disagree. We haven't really done a real major release. This first one was for ip clearance and we will be adding new functionality in every release and we don't want to end up at 1.20 before we know it. To me 1.1 will be the first release where we have some sort of feature parity with act

Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon

Just to add, I think from 1.1 we do it the way suggested i.e minor versions for patch releases etc but until Artemis can be regarded as a possible alternative to activemq I think stick to 1.0.1, having lots of major versions will just confuse people imo On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:03 Andy Taylor

Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon

1.0.1 is fine I think On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:04 Clebert Suconic wrote: > I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early > next week. > > > I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep > calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the releas

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Coding Style

h this > thread. > > > I will close that PR for now. > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Andy Taylor > wrote: > > +0, I dont really mind what style is used and happy for it to be > changed. It > > may make sense tho not to make the changes while anyone is making

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Coding Style

+0, I dont really mind what style is used and happy for it to be changed. It may make sense tho not to make the changes while anyone is making big changes, I'm doing some refactoring now and don't fancy a list of conflicts when i rebase. maybe just before or just after a release would be a good

Re: Git workflow for committers

+1, I think that covers it really well Daniel. It encourages people to have large changes reviewed but doesn't mandate it. Andy On 10/06/15 01:22, Daniel Kulp wrote: I guess if it was up to me to actually write a formal doc describing the process it would go something like: ——— ActiveM

Re: Git workflow for committers

The branch can be removed, I know because I accidentally created one :). Im just wondering if these branches appear in Github? Andy On 10/06/15 03:48, Clebert wrote: As long as the branch can be removed later. I am not sure it can. Would need to check first. You could squash commits and reba

Re: Git workflow for committers

On Jun 9, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Jun 9, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: Dan, are you implying you are going to bypass the workflow that everyone else is using and commit directly? shouldnt we be consistent? That IS being consistent with the workflow that the *ACTIVEMQ

Re: Git workflow for committers

where your commits start. Lets have the conversation that Bruce started and improve on whats there, it is after all its 10 years old and things move on. Andy On 09/06/15 16:03, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Jun 9, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: Dan, are you implying you are going to

Re: Git workflow for committers

Dan, are you implying you are going to bypass the workflow that everyone else is using and commit directly? shouldnt we be consistent? On 09/06/15 15:45, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Jun 9, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: It turns out we didn’t have a build setup for that. We do now

Re: Git workflow for committers

If anyone doesnt want to use Github then they can simply use git to create a patch and send it to the dev list. Another committer can then review it, raise a PR, wait for the CI build to test it and then it can be merged in the usual way. This way we keep all the info we need and a consistent g

Re: Artemis - CXF

The Rest modules were contributed HornetQ but to be honest have never really been used in anger and there are no devs that have really any knowledge of it, in fact you are probably the most knowledgeable already Daniel :). Personally I see no issues with making it optional and changing what eve

  1   2   >