Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0

+1 On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 17:37 Clebert Suconic wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0 release. > > I would like to highlight the following changes: > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4813 In a rare race, > Large messages that were partially sent befor

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

+1 On Wed, May 29, 2024, 18:43 Clebert Suconic wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release. > > > I would like to highlight the following improvements as part of this > release: > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4758 - Extensive > resiliency tests

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.2

+1 On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 12:17, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi folks, > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.2 release. > > This addresses a defect introduced in the recent 2.31.1 release. > > The release notes can be found here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Releas

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

makes sense, but please keep a clear distinction - activemq classic 6.0.0 activemq X may still evolve to combine the best of both. On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 22:15, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > First, I realize that this thread is likely to cause a fight based on p

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.30.0

+1 On Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 14:54 Justin Bertram wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.30.0 release. > > This is mainly a bug-fix release with a few small improvements and a > handful of dependency upgrades. > > The release notes can be found here: > > https://issues.apache.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.29.0

+1 On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, 00:40 Clebert Suconic wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.29.0 release. > > This is a representative workload with 126 JIRAs and 200+ commits with > a diverse number of committers. Thanks to all who contributed to this > big release. > > > The r

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.28.0

+1 On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 15:19, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.28.0 release. > > I would like to highlight the following changes in this release: > > - Page counting improved. We no longer store counters in the journal > simply relying on paging i

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.27.1 release

+1 On Mon, Nov 28, 2022, 21:54 Clebert Suconic wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.27.1 release > > > This is a bug fix release, > > I would like to highlight these 3 bug fixes: > > - AMQP Large Message over Bridges were broken > - Rollback of massive transactions would

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.26.0 release

+1 On Wed, 21 Sept 2022 at 21:24, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.26.0 release. > > > We removed ActiveMQ Artemis Rest, (which was already non functional) > as part of this release. > And other improvements and bug fixes. > > > The release notes can

Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week

ch I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x > branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should > start working on it). > > > What do you think? > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > > @Gary T

Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week

would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main? On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x). > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement, > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis Native 2.0.0 release (RC2)

+1 On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 20:52, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an ActiveMQ Artemis Native 2.0.0 release > > > For those who are not familiar, this is the Native Layer in Artemis > responsible for the integration on Linux and Libaio. > > > I have been working on some logging c

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.1

+1 On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 at 21:59, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.1 release > > This is a small release following up where I added a fix for the following > bug: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3856 - Failed to change > channel

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.0

+1 On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 20:05, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.0 release. > > As part of this release I would like to highlight the addition of > Jakarta 10 to the supported APIs. > > > > The release notes can be found here: > https://activemq.a

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.22.0

+1 On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 12:26, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 17:25, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.22.0 release. > > > > > > There are no new features on this release, however there are many > > improvements and bug fix

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.1

+1 thank you! verified source distro build and basic function On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 20:08, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.1 release. > > > This is a maintenance release on top of 2.19.0 that includes a few bug fixes. > > The release notes can

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.20.0

+1 build from source, verified basic operation and console On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 17:23, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.20.0 release... > > > There is a few improvements and bug fixes on this release, there's one > feature added: > > [ARTEMIS-2097

Re: Migrating plugins from ActiveMQ to Artemis

there are plugin apis in artemis that map nicely - see https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/examples/features/standard/broker-plugin however, for your own authenticating/authorizing plugin the simplest approach is to wrap your plugin in a custom security manager. see an example: h

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0

+1 On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 17:29, Timothy Bish wrote: > > On 10/11/21 10:13 PM, Justin Bertram wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0 release. > > > > We added these new features as part of 2.19.0: > > > > - New ability to replay retained journal records via the manag

Re: JMS Mix "Classic" Clients with "Artemis" Servers

yes. Artemis has openwire protocol support on the default Acceptor. It peeks at the initial packets to see what protocol manager - AMQP, OPENWIRE, MQTT, CORE etc it needs to hand off to. On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 12:20, Christoph Läubrich wrote: > > We currently plan to switch from Classic>Artemis b

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0

the check sum seems wrong: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.19.0/apache-artemis-2.19.0-bin.tar.gz.sha512 can someone else verify? I get: fbf14235851a3044d5c7732b1a21412c3b0fd5f312e814d2449c7e0533e9467718c48e577a80806a996593c626a8268aeee490beb93abef369ac9498130dc6

Re: [PROPOSAL] Change Apache ActiveMQ blog theme

it may make sense to disable comment on the blog, it seems all are spam. If conversations need to happen around a blog post, they can be on the user list. On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 10:12, Domenico Francesco Bruscino wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I have just applied the new theme, see https://blogs.apache.

Re: ACK compaction with local transactions

good catch, reading back on AMQ-7067 I see that both xa and local commits were considered but only xa was completed! see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7067?focusedCommentId=16643245&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16643245 this fix and te

Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Apache ActiveMQ from "Classic" to "Leto" | Website update/polish

t;>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 M

Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Apache ActiveMQ from "Classic" to "Leto" | Website update/polish

; http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> < > >> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq > >>> <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think it’s even better than introducing a new name, I agree. > >>>>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Apache ActiveMQ from "Classic" to "Leto" | Website update/polish

Hi JB, I think "classic" is a good name precisely because of its meaning, it reflects its value and is a good way to differentiate on the website. But I don't think the classic stream should be limited in versioning. If for good reason (a new incompatible openwire version/storage incompatible chan

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.17.0 RC2

+1 On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 20:25, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.17.0 release. This > is the second try, Release Candidate 2 (RC2). The previous identified > issue with the NOTICE with the wrong year has been fixed. > > > > This is a summary of the i

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.17.0

+1 verified source distro, signature and sha built with jdk8, message round trip via console all good. On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 22:35, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.17.0 release > > > This is a summary of the improvements as part of 2.17.0: > > - Me

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.16.0

+1 verified source archive On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 01:45, Clebert Suconic wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.16.0 release. > > This release is including these new features as part of 2.16.0: > > [ARTEMIS-2901] - Support namespace for temporary queues > [ARTEMIS-2937] -

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP connectivity new features

> they want from broker plugins. > > > I will rename this as Mirror > > > and then I can have a MirrorSource and MirrorTarget > > > WDYT? > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 8:21 AM Gary Tully wrote: > > > > Hi Clebert, this is a great piece of work. &

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP connectivity new features

Hi Clebert, this is a great piece of work. One thing popped out for me from the PR, the remoteControl interface. I know naming is hard :-). That name to me means something is controlling from afar. But I think it is really a set of change events that a broker can emit. If I understand correctly,

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.15.0 release

+1 - built from dist source with 1.8 jdk and verified distro operation On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 19:48, Domenico Francesco Bruscino < bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.15.0 release. > > We added these new features as part of 2.15.0: > > [ARTEMIS-284

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ CLI Tools 0.2.0

There were 3 binding +1 votes and no other votes were received. The vote has passed. Thanks to all who took the time to verify the release. /gary.

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ KahaDB Export Tool 0.1.0

Hi Samuel, the release(s) can be found at: https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi?filename=apache/activemq activemq-cli-tools The project is at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-cli-tools On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:10, skao wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I would like to convert the kahadb data to xml for

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ CLI Tools 0.2.0

https://people.apache.org/keys/ because it hasnt been found. > > > That may mean you cant release the staging repo. > > > > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:06, Gary Tully wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > makes pe

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ CLI Tools 0.2.0

21, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Did you upload your new PGP public key to a keyserver? It isnt being > listed at https://people.apache.org/keys/ because it hasnt been found. > That may mean you cant release the staging repo. > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:06, Gary Tully wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ CLI Tools 0.2.0

Thanks Tim, makes perfect sense and is item 11 on the release guide, sorted now. The staged artifacts are at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-cli-tools/0.2.0/ kind regards, gary On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 21:18, Timothy Bish wrote: > On 7/21/20 1:03 PM, Gary Tully wr

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ CLI Tools 0.2.0

Hi Everyone, I have a candidate for vote. This has support for migrating virtual topic consumer queues to durable subscription queues as part of kahadb export. doc: https://github.com/apache/activemq-cli-tools The list of resolved issues is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote

[ANNOUNCE] CVE-2020-13932 Apache ActiveMQ Artemis - Remote XSS in Web console Diagram Plugin

Apache ActiveMQ Artemis - Remote XSS in Web console Diagram Plugin Severity: Medium Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Affected Version: Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.5.0 to 2.13.0 Vulnerability details: A specifically crafted MQTT packet which has an XSS payload as client-id or topic name can

Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments and documentation

I think for openwire, rename and a change in openwire version is the way to go. keeping the old terms around for backward compatibility is both sensible and necessary. On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:42, Christopher Shannon wrote: > > I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.14.0

+1 thank you. On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:26, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.14.0 release. > > We only added one feature as part of this release: > > [ARTEMIS-2770] - Update diverts using the management API > > And we have quite a few improvements o

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.0 release (take #2)

+0 doing: mvn install on the source bundle, after about 6 attempts it gets through all but one test: activemq-karaf-itest ActiveMQBrokerFeatureTest.testSendReceiveWeb:122->produceMessageWebConsole:106 post succeeded, POST http://localhost:8181/activemqweb/sendMessage.action?secret=042c4710-37f5-

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis Native 1.0.2

+1 verified sha512 on dist source bundle, license and readme On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 16:00, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > Right, sorry for the miss... it's uploaded now > > > This VOTE thread remains open > > > Just for reference, > > here is the staged source release: > https://dist.apache.org/repo

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.13 release

+1 On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 12:41, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I'm submitting ActiveMQ 5.15.13 release to your vote. > > This release includes several bug fixes and improvements. > > Please take a look on the Release Notes for details: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.13.0

+1 On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 17:26, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.13.0 release. > > > This release will include these features: > > [ARTEMIS-2666] - Add management for duplicate ID cache > [ARTEMIS-2726] - Implement min/max expiry-delay > [ARTEMIS-27

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis health check tool (ARTEMIS-2739)

I imagine the equivalent of the oracle db query : "select * from DUAL", ie: something that exercise the server. A combination of queue produce and consume, on some existing queue or on a temp queue for that purpose. I guess an existing queue may be better b/c on production systems queue creation m

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.12.0 RC2

+1 On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, 22:59 Clebert Suconic, wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.12.0 release. > > This is a second try after I cancelled the release after a possible > blocker. > > We added the following features as part of 2.12.0: > > [ARTEMIS-1194] - SOCKS proxy su

Re: NIST CVEs for ActiveMQ

kia.policyLocation&unscoped_q=jolokia.policyLocation). > Does this mean the issue was not fixed in AMQ? > > Colm. > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:32 PM Gary Tully wrote: > > > for 2 and 3, the fix is in the http endpoint configuration for hawtio > > for 1, configurin

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements

Hi Christopher, this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to see if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only moving messages that are needed. The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rat

Re: NIST CVEs for ActiveMQ

for 2 and 3, the fix is in the http endpoint configuration for hawtio for 1, configuring jolokia.policyLocation is all that is required. that was not possible in earlier versions of A-MQ. I don't think any of the above are relevant to activemq 5. On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 12:53, j...@nanthrax.net

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.10.1

+1 build from source, verified basic function and console On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 21:26, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.10.1 Release. > > The release contains bug fixes and improvements as you can see on the > release report: > https://issues.apach

Re: [QUESTION] PUSH -f on master

I would not do a push -f, just commit a fix on top. With mirrors in play it may cause problems. On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 12:34, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I did a mistake yesterday, and I pushed a commit I wasn't supposed to. > > It was a commit only intended to my box, it says "fix" > > nothing to

Re: Artemis past releases page breakages

is that step in: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/RELEASING.md On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 12:29, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > I've found that the docs/downloads/etc links for recent releases on > the past releases page are broken nearly every time I have used the > page over the l

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.8.0 [rc2]

+1 verified distro built from source artefact On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 23:47, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.8.0 release. > > This is basically a bug fix release, with the addition of the following > feature > > [ARTEMIS-2306] - Support ActiveMQ5 fe

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.8.0

respin as nothing has been published yet. On Wed, 1 May 2019, 06:01 Clebert Suconic, wrote: > I have a question. I have found a critical issue: > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2656/commits/46d550bda25eae609ee874f5f88b28221a141083 > > It's not a regression on 2.8.0, but a bl

Re: [VOTE] Website Update

+1 great work. It looks really fresh and the style is crisp. On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 20:07, Justin Bertram wrote: > > As most of you probably know there's been work underway to update the > ActiveMQ website for the better part of a year. That work has reached a > point where it makes sense to vot

Re: Failover Transport - send timeout not working

note the last comment on AMQ-. Check the logs, your failover connection is probably trying to reconnect forever. use maxReconnectAttempts=x to limit that. On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:43, tal.cohen2 wrote: > > Hi . > we are using activemq v.5.15.8 broker and client. (jdk 1.8) > when configuring

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.7.0

+1 On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.7.0 release. > > This is a big release, with 526 Commits, over 291 JIRAs overall. I'm > really proud being part of this project involving many companies and > distinct great developers

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis Native 1.0.0 (RC2)

+1 On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 01:25, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Native 1.0.0 > release. This is a second re-spin. > > This is a sub component of ActiveMQ Artemis Native, > > Source distribution can be found here: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/d

Re: [Discuss] Refactoring KahaDBStore class

t, is the goal. As for it being maintained for 7 > years, that's great. However, I'm sure you'll agree it's not perfect, and > community improvements are welcome. > > Art > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:30 AM Gary Tully wrote: > > > Jamie, > > y

Re: [Discuss] Refactoring KahaDBStore class

t in 15.9 does not change > any way it operates or works. It only cleans up the readability of > the code. > > > "A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together > is reality." > > ― John Lennon > > > Cheers, > Jamie > On Tu

Re: [Discuss] Refactoring KahaDBStore class

Hi Jamie G, There are a few trade offs to consider: 1) those familiar with the code will have to reacquaint themselves with anything that is refactored 2) backporting fixes will be more difficult when the code structure changes Of the two, I think #2 is more critical. On #1: context builds up o

Re: [discussion] About blocking producers

There may be two different use cases here; 1) the pause/resume use case, where it makes some sense to leave producers active stop reading/deny credit/buffer etc; the corollary to the pause consumers 2) the take down for maintenance case, where it would be nice to drain the broker. In the past,

Re: AMQ-7006

ly checking the responses and not the internal > workings. > > Do you know how I could go about writing a test for this case? > > Thanks > Avikash > > On 4/07/2018, at 10:07 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > > > > see: org.apache.activemq.transport.stomp.Stomp12Test > &

Re: AMQ-7006

for your reply. > Is there any tests I can leverage off? I need to test the > onStompMessageAck method in StompSubsrcription.java class. > Or if you can point me in the right direction. > > Thanks > Avikash > > On 3/07/2018, at 9:14 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > > > >

Re: AMQ-7006

please add a unit test that will demonstrate the problem and fix and also protect it. On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, 06:04 Avikash Mishra, wrote: > Hi there, > > We have been having the issue mentioned here > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7006 > > I have attached a patch. Please review and get

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.3

+1 On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 21:58 Timothy Bish wrote: > On 01/29/2018 08:59 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > I have created the ActiveMQ 5.15.3 release and it's ready for a vote. > > > > The list of resolved issues is here: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Release

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

I don't agree with the premise of this discussion at all. It seems to be born out of a your replies to your self in an echo chamber. What are the adverse consequences in providing a robust migration path for 5.x users to activemq 6 *within* the ActiveMQ project? The preceding vote did not have an

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

nly make it happen and I see the energy around artemis provides a future path. The alternative is more stagnation. /gary. > On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder wrote: > > > >> My understanding of this vote is that it is

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder wrote: > My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state > the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as > ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address > concerns. This was also my

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

+1 On 5 Dec 2017 7:59 am, "Francesco Nigro" wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > > Il giorno mar 5 dic 2017 alle ore 04:17 Francois Papon < > francois.pa...@openobject.fr> ha scritto: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Francois > > > > > > Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit : > > > Following on

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

I think ActiveMQ needs a roadmap for sure and I think Artemis is the future for a bunch of technical reasons. Without a clear direction going forward we will loose adoption because I don't know anyone who likes making a choice. If you are an existing ActiveMQ user there should be a clear path for

Re: Dead Letter Queue Expiry

That could maybe filter into a bounded queue feature. If the dlq is bounded by time, if head of the queue is X milliseconds old drop it. A bounded queue, bounded by size, memory usage, disk usage or time is a very useful concept. On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 19:37 Clebert Suconic wrote: > Feel free to

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.2

+1 On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 21:49 Timothy Bish wrote: > +1 > > * Checked each archive to License and Notice files > * Validated signatures and checksums > * Ran the binary broker build on linux, checked web console and sent > some messages using Qpid JMS example > * Built from source and ran the s

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.1

the activemq-amqp-client karaf feature was broken upstream and in the release due to a new netty dependency. see: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;h=33b52b5 maybe that fix should be pulled in - the ActiveMQAMQPBrokerFeatureTest regressed. On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 at 16:47 Timoth

Re: Oracle - delivered Messages remain in ACTIVEMQ_MSGS

That DELETE statement is for durable topic subscribers. For queues, a delete is done when the message is acked, does you application acknowledge receipt of the message after onDelivery or is the session auto ack? On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 23:02 Heike Potter wrote: > We are running an application on

Re: [DISCUSS] Critical Analysis feature on broker

nice, I think there is value in just logging this information and not halting of stopping. In this way the feature can be used to determine usage patterns and spikes etc and it would be possible to determine what the critical levels are. This would allow a separation between getting information and

Re: HEADS UP 1.5.6 and 2.2.0 release in 1 or 2 Weeks

e it. It should be ok from what I saw. > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > > i would like to get the kerberos bits into 2.2.0 > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1379 > > > > > > On 1 Jul 2017 01:28, "Clebert Suconic"

Re: HEADS UP 1.5.6 and 2.2.0 release in 1 or 2 Weeks

i would like to get the kerberos bits into 2.2.0 https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1379 On 1 Jul 2017 01:28, "Clebert Suconic" wrote: > I just fixed what i was going after... > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1269 > > Anyone else has anything important to send? I wan

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.0

+1 There are some odd stack traces in the source build from bnd tools - looks like we may need to add some additional excludes or it may be java8 bits that bnd cannot parse. It is a little ugly need not be a blocker. eg: [*INFO*] *--- *maven-bundle-plugin:2.3.7:manifest *(bundle-manifest)* @ act

Re: Artemis commands in OSGi

one thought - in 5.x there was some overlap between producer/consumer tools provided by activemq and the jms send/receive tools in karaf[1]. It may make sense to integrate with the karaf platform in this regard for the plain jms stuff and have artemis specifics around destination and broker stats

Re: Change Resource Adapter Defaults

this may be out of date but there is an example at: https://github.com/gtully/activemq-arquillian/blob/master/javaee/jca-config/server/standalone/configuration/standalone-example.xml#L341 On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 at 18:35 myung wrote: > Hello, I am working with the ActiveMQ Resource Adapter, hooking

Re: ActiveMQ + lgtm?

this looks like a very nice tool and useful. the ui is great :-) re: - The remaining alerts (present in today's code) can be found here . Many of them seem worthwhile to fix - what is the best way to collaborate with the ActiveMQ tea

Re: Do we need DynamicImport-Package in actrivemq OSGi?

my understanding is that it is related to embedding a broker and using something like the jdbc store that uses a third party driver. The required package import cannot be known in-advance. Another scenario would be a custom broker plugin. In essence, because there are extension points exposed by th

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

makes sense to me. keep the focus on the current default store. On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 11:14 Richard Kettelerij wrote: > +1 (non-binding). > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jim Gomes wrote: > > > No objections. I was never clear on what advantages LevelDB was supposed > to > > offer anyway.

Re: {VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.7.2

+1 On Mon 4 Apr 2016 4:22 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jim Gomes wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, 6:36 AM Timothy Bish wrote: > > > > > Hello > > > > > > This is a call for a vote on the release of Apache.

Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.3

+1 On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 at 20:47 Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Timothy Bish > wrote: > > > New vote open for ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.3 > > > > This is a new patch release of the ActiveMQ-CPP client with a fix for the > > message

Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.1

+1 On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 at 12:35 Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Timothy Bish > wrote: > > > New vote open for ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.1 > > > > > > T

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.13.0

source builds ok, license check ok, locally built binaries pass sanity check +1 On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 at 01:05 Jamie G. wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Gomes wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015, 6:23 AM Christopher Shannon < > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.12.1

+1 On Mon 12 Oct 2015 7:34 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have cut the ActiveMQ 5.12.1 release and it's ready for a vote. This > release has 22 bug fixes and > improvements. > > The list of resolved issues is here: > > https://issues.apach

Re: {VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.7.1

+1 On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 at 16:46 Timothy Bish wrote: > On 09/30/2015 07:04 PM, Jim Gomes wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, 2:44 PM Timothy Bish wrote: > > > >> Hello > >> > >> This is a call for a vote on the release of Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ v1.7.1 > >> > >> This is first bugfix release o

Re: [DISCUSS] Refactor job scheduler

that makes good sense. There is an open issue on this - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5238 On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 at 13:30 Erik Wramner wrote: > I'm considering implementing a JDBC job scheduler store. The current > state of affairs where there is only a memory and KahaDB job scheduler

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis (RC4)

+1 On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 at 18:33 Timothy Bish wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On 09/18/2015 10:55 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > Hello all. > > > > I've cut a 4th release candidate of Apache Artemis 1.1.0 addressing. > > This latest RC fixes the MDB regressions as discussed on the RC3 > > feedback. > > >

maven-bundle-plugin warning on the web-console

the console output on a build of the activemq-web-console has been bugging me for ages. Stuff like: [WARNING] Manifest org.apache.activemq:activemq-web-console:war:5.12-SNAPSHOT : Split package org/apache/activemq/web and: [ERROR] Manifest org.apache.activemq:activemq-web-console:war:5.12-SNAPSH

Re: [question] parallel tests in java

ed to be able to tell > which tests are safe to run in parallel. > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Gary Tully wrote: >> maven surefire can fire off a few parallel jvms on a junit class or >> method or I think even modules in parallel - it is at a higher level >> but

Re: [question] parallel tests in java

maven surefire can fire off a few parallel jvms on a junit class or method or I think even modules in parallel - it is at a higher level but it think it is a sensible approach. http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-surefire-plugin/test-mojo.html#parallel On 25 June 2015 at 14:53, Clebert Suconic

Re: Completing the IP clearance for Artemis

looks good to me too. On 27 May 2015 at 18:04, Hiram Chirino wrote: > Ok I think the IP clearance form is now complete: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml > > Could some more PMC members please review and let me know if it looks > good to the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.0.0 (RC3)

+1 On 21 May 2015 at 17:38, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Hello all. > > I've cut a third release candidate of Apache Artemis 1.0.0, addressing the > RC2 feedback from community members. > > This is a first release of the Artemis project with protocol support for > AMQP, STOMP, CORE, HORNETQ and OPENWIR

Re: What does it take to become a committer on ActiveMQ?

added willingness to document to the list in the wiki. discussion on issues or the lists could maybe be pulled into separate points. I think if you hit any or all of the points you could be a committer. On 20 May 2015 at 16:32, Bruce Snyder wrote: > What do you feel it takes to become a committe

[jira] [Commented] (AMQ-5734) Support MQTT 3.1 silent subscription fail

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5734?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14519143#comment-14519143 ] Gary Tully commented on AMQ-5734: - Dejan - can u peek at https://fisheye6.atlassian

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >