Re: [VOTE] Release activemq-nms-api 2.0.0-rc1

+1 (Binding). Thanks. On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:04 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:09 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre > wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > Le 16 févr. 2021 à 22:12, Havret a écrit : > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I have

Re: [DISCUSSION] New Quorum vote pluggable implementation

I think this is a great idea Franz. The HA and replication components have been a source of issues over the years. Two problems I see are that 1) there isn't a clean separation between the consensus mechanism and the replication, and 2) the consensus algorithm used in Artemis isn't based on any s

Re: Artemis: AMQP create queue based on FQQN

such as knowing when an "empty" address > does not exist.. damn topics!) > > Other than that the address model I think it's pretty flexible. The > routing type exists pretty much to differentiate empty addresses. > Again.. damn JMS! as we require that kind of thing to s

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NMS AMQP 1.8.0 - RC2

+1 (Binding) On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 3:18 PM Michael Pearce wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks all how reviewed rc1, hopefully all the points raised are now > resolved. > > I have put together a second spin for a Apache NMS AMQP release, please > check it and vote accordingly. > > This release effectiv

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NMS 1.8.0 - Release Candidate 6

+1 (Binding) On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:47 AM Clebert Suconic wrote: > +1 binding. > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM > wrote: > > > Just realised though whilst its implied as the person performing the > > release. Here is my formal: > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > Get Outl

Re: [VOTE] Website Update

+1 On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:25 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:12 AM Gary Tully wrote: > > > +1 > > > > great work. It looks really fresh and the style is crisp. > > > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 20:07, Justin Bertram > wrote: >

Re: Website

; > > > > > other content changes ready to push, > but > > I wanted to get this out> > > > first for> > > > > > review & > discussion.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > In case anybody wonders, I removed the big "Used By" &g

Re: Website

at 4:58 PM Martyn Taylor wrote: > I've went ahead and populated the repository, there's a GitHub mirror > here[1]. I've also generated the static content and should have the work > in progress hosted under a separately directory and a message on the > homepage shortly.

Re: Website

22, 2018 at 7:47 AM michael.andre.pearce < > > michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > >> Sounds good to me. > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > >> Original messag

Re: Website

l.apache.org/ > > Bruce > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:30 AM Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:38 PM Bruce Snyder > > wrote: > > > > > Fair points, Martyn. I like the idea of a combination of JIRA issues > > plus a > > > l

Re: Website

ive with this? Then start working through the nice to haves/criticals. I think once we're live and the code is available, the community will be more inclined to report/fixing issues. Cheers > > Bruce > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:44 AM Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > Cheer

Re: Website

Cheers gents, looks like we're all set with the git repos. Shall we start putting together a ToDo list for what needs to happen to move to the new site? JIRA perhaps? Bruce you mentioned a search feature for older content. Can you elaborate on this. Also, there's the actual content for the pag

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3

+1. On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:11 AM Timothy Bish wrote: > > > On 08/30/2018 10:46 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 release. > > > > >

Re: HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 to be cut Friday the 10th

@Clebert. There's been a pretty serious issue discovered with the RA, in that it's not performing fail over properly. This results in a loss of all availability for messaging. It was discovered during some WildFly testing. I've reported the issue[1] and linked to the original. Are we able to g

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 (3rd respin)

+1 On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Francesco Nigro wrote: > +1 > > *built and run some tests > > Il giorno mer 6 giu 2018 alle ore 16:45 Timothy Bish > ha scritto: > > > On 06/04/2018 08:35 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 release. This >

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate commit for Test and Fix on PRs

I think having test that don't compile due to code changes is an exception. I think we should strive for this approach. Clebert, I follow the same process you described, I undo the change then run the test to see what was wrong and that the test is valid. In my opinion this is a positive thing t

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

Bruce, All We organised a webex discussion on the dev list[1] where we discussed Michael's proposal and created a bunch of JIRA[2] that we think are needed in order to move forward with the proposal. Unfortunately only a handful of people attended. There is concern that a lot of work will be put

Re: Website Discussion

chael André Pearce < michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > Just a reminder to all we will meeting up tonight. > > Martyn could you share the link? > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 1 Mar 2018, at 10:34, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > > OK, how about Wednesday sa

Re: Website Discussion

> On 28 Feb 2018, at 14:49, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > > I won't be able to do march 5th... I have a personal appointment that > > I can't move at all... (government stuff) and I really want to > > participate (at least listening). Can you move a day

Website Discussion

All, I wanted to pick up the website discussion again since it seems to have stalled. The last conversation we had was around us setting up a video call or hackathon to get the ball rolling. I had a conversation with Michael Pearce earlier in the week who's put together a potential site map as w

[ANNOUNCE] CVE-2017-12174: Memory exhaustion via UDP and JGroups discovery

CVE-2017-12174: Memory exhaustion via UDP and JGroups discovery Severity: High Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: 1.0.0, 1.1.0, 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, 1.5.5, 2.0.0, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, 2.3.0 Description: If an Apache Artemis broker is co

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Artemis 1.5.6

All, I am extremely pleased to announce the release of Apache Artemis 1.5.6 This 1.5.6 patch release contains the following fix: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1482 The project website for Apache Artemis has been updated include this release and can be found here: http://activemq

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

Michael, I think all Clebert is suggesting here is to have something that works out the box to demonstrate the JDBC store. Derby is a good candidate as it can work in memory, and we it in a lot in our tests. I've actually not talked to Clebert about this, so he can confirm/deny if this was his i

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

+1 on making it clear that the project is deprecated. The main thing in my opinion is the message we send on the website and email lists. However, I do still think that making the repository read only makes sense. On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 a

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

is if ASF Infra is willing to > > allow us to deploy such custom rules. This should be investigated when we > > get to that point, but we are not there yet. First, we need to decide the > > best path forward based on what I have described above in the preceding > >

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

I was thinking there would be a single css file for all the pages. But I haven't seen the files yet. Let's have a play around when Bruce pushes the export. Cheers On 12 Dec 2017 5:30 pm, "Michael André Pearce" wrote: > What’s 1600 pages between friends > > I agree it will be easier to cove

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

docs into a MD format so it would be > > just a like a documentation format. gitbook convertible. > > > > > > is there a requirement to keep the docs as website? we could think > > differently here, right? > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 8

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

> > https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq- > site/blob/master/site/BUILD.md > > Bruce > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > Some ideas to kick off design discussion. > > > > Really what I am trying to convey here is that ActiveMQ i

Re: Artemis Roadmap

Are you specifically asking about the Core bridge? Or clustering in Artemis? See the message-load-balancing policy on the cluster connection: https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/2.3.0/clusters.html I think ON_DEMAND is what you're after. Cheers On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Christopher

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

Some ideas to kick off design discussion. Really what I am trying to convey here is that ActiveMQ is the home of a more than just 5.x series. And to have clear links to each project, clicking through would take you to landing page for the project. This essentially would be the landing page for t

Re: [DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

Nice idea Clebert. I'd be happy to jump on and help out. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > Clebert- > > I think this is a great idea. I really appreciated when you did this for > me in the past. It was informative and helped me clarify my questions on > feature gaps. > > -

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

Bruce, could you take what you have and put it up somewhere, perhaps in Git so we can take a look? Cheers. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: > I have poked through some of the exported HTML pages from Confluence and > there is so much cruft in there. E.g., large amounts of con

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

try abusing of your voting power. But you'd gain more > respect from building technology of undeniable value, like many of the ASF > projects. > > Hadrian > > > > > On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > >> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the acc

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

-1. I'm not even going to add weight to this discussion by giving a reason. I find the thread a ridiculous reaction to the vote email, in it there are more inaccurate claims of the opinions of members of the community. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > I don't agree with the

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this thread. After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again. I continue to use my Red Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review. I

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

Thanks for starting this thread. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote: > Several opinions have been expressed recently that the ActiveMQ website > needs some attention and that Artemis should be made more prominent. I'd > like to discuss some ideas to see what we could achieve on t

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

+0. I manage just fine using filters and also use the dev list to conduct PR discussions. I am not against the idea of using separate lists, if others think it'd be useful. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > It seems to me that we should then move it... people who need ca

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

+1. >From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not necessarily the details of how we get there. I agree there are some discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base. But I th

Re: Contribute a properties-based SQL Provider

Hi Jeff, I think I much prefer this approach of keeping the database specific logic (i.e. the SQL statements) separate from the implementation. This would allow us to have a pure JDBC API + SQL implementation, and adding support for a new vendor would just be a case of dropping in a new propertie

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > Clebert, > > > > We need to distinguish between streamed messages and large messages. For > > the basic large message case, i.e. a single large message

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

Clebert, We need to distinguish between streamed messages and large messages. For the basic large message case, i.e. a single large message sent to the broker. I agree with what you have here. Streamed large messages (i.e. messages that are received in chunks) allows us to store the message wit

Re: [HEADS-UP] 1.5.6 release in a week

Hi Mohamed, Yes, the 1.5.x client is compatible with 2.4.0. There were previously a couple of issues in the broker. These have now been resolved. Cheers Martyn On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Mohamed Badri wrote: > hi, > > after 2.4.0 release, is a 1.5.X still planned ? > > Wildfly 11 inclu

Re: Twitter

+1 from me On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think lazy concensus is ok. As long as no one has any objections I would > think it's ok to move ahead with it under PMC control as Tim pointed out. > But Tim is right that should give i

Re: Kafka ServiceConnector

Looking at the Kafka Connect example. I see that the integration components are all maintained outside of the Kafka project. They're listed here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Ecosystem How about we do something similar and create a wiki/web page linking the integration proje

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

I don't think the responses were negative. I don't think the benefit was made clear and people are questioning whether it's worth the effort. How much time are we talking about saving here? Seconds, minutes or hours? Would a reviewer script be helpful for some of this? IMO the Artemis release p

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0

e will need to fix and rebuild. Michael I tested your patch and it solves the problem. I have some comments, I will post on the PR. Thanks On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Tim, > > Are you sure your browser has not cached a previous version of the HawtIO >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0

Tim, Are you sure your browser has not cached a previous version of the HawtIO branding? What happens if you run inside of private browse mode? On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Michael André Pearce < michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Like Clebert I cannot reproduce. > > I have a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 2.2.0

+1 On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:26 PM, nigro_franz wrote: > > > +1 > > > > * Built from source and ran tests > > * Ran from binary vs a load generator > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

ntre, but in the > > about area would suffice. > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Martyn Taylor > wrote

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

I've taken some time to review the console. I don't think we're quite there yet in terms of meeting all of the goals outlined in the original email. However, I don't think we need to hold up merging the PR. Improvements can be made iteratively. Couple of comments: Must be ActiveMQ Branded *

Re: Non Durable Queue Cleanup

Michael, As Andy mentioned it's protocol specific. With CORE protocol, the client sends a DELETE QUEUE packet. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/ artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/ ServerSessionPacketHandler.java#L376 In AMQP, the qu

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

Michael, If people think this is the way to go then I can't see there being any problem with 3). Cheers On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Michael André Pearce < michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > Ok, > > So i think we can do this. From a local build. > > Please see screenshots. > > https://g

Re: org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.journal.impl.JournalImpl

There's no way to explicitly limit the number of page files. However, you can set the "max-disk-usage" parameter[1][2]. Once this limit is reached, the broker will use flow control to stop the clients sending more messages (this is the same as BLOCK policy). If the protocol being used does not s

Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Object Serialisation Support

t; > >>>>>>>>> Really this is much more about how an ObjectMessage serializes > > the Object. As we have C++ clients etc that obviously won't be able to > > understand Java serialized object. > > >>>>>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Object Serialisation Support

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: > On 06/01/2017 09:34 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: >> >> On 06/01/2017 08:51 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: >>> >>> I get the use case for using

Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Object Serialisation Support

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: > On 06/01/2017 08:51 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > >> I get the use case for using JSON/XML, particularly for cross language >> communication. >> >> One way users get around this problem right now is just to serial

Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Object Serialisation Support

I get the use case for using JSON/XML, particularly for cross language communication. One way users get around this problem right now is just to serialize to/from XML/JSON at the client application level and just use JMS TextMessages to send the data. I guess the idea here to remove that complexit

Re: [DISCUSS] Use pooled buffers on message body

ool()... > >> > >> > >> > >> Regarding the ref counts.. we will need to add a new reference > >> counting.. the current one is a bit complex to be used because of > >> delivering.. DLQs.. etc... it's a big challenge for sure! > >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Use pooled buffers on message body

We've had using buffer pools throughout on the backlog for a long time, so +1 on this. The only thing I'd say here is that retrofitting the reference counting (i.e. releasing the buffers) can sometimes lead to leaks, if we don't catch all cases, so we just need to be careful here. One other thing

Re: [DISCUSS] New logo discussion

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Michael André Pearce < michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > Agree PNG / Vector is fairly a must. +1 that one > > Def need a logo / icon +1 that idea > > I'm not so sure we need to say the text and icon when togeather have to be > separate, but should be seperatabl

Re: [DISCUSS] New logo discussion

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > I talked to the PMC private list and we have consensus that starting > this would be a good idea. > > Before we start a call for logo, We need to define the requirements > for the logo and what we will ask: > > I'm thinking of defining th

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis FQQN(Full Qualified Queue Name) implementation

Hi Howard, I was going to reply in line, but I think there's a fundamental assumption you've made that's caused some confusion], so I'll reply here. The purpose of FQQN is not to change the uniqueness of queue names across addresses. Each queue must have a globally unique name. Instead, the cha

Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests

much. Please merge my current PR > > and change it any way you like. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > > When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that > it > > shouldn't be

Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests

When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that it shouldn't be part of the built released examples. Unless of course it's written up as a proper example with a proper readme with context and is appropriately named like all the other examples. What I don't want to do is c

Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests

Good idea Clebert. We probably don't want to include these smoke tests as part of the release, so can you ensure you don't include it in the examples pom :) Cheers On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > We always had the examples on Artemis playing a double thingy... being >

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Artemis 2.0.0

All, I am extremely pleased to announce the release of Apache Artemis 2.0.0. This 2.0.0 release represents a major milestone for Apache Artemis and contains a bunch of new features and performance enhancements. See the release notes for details. The project website for Apache Artemis has been u

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Artemis 2.0.0

Results of the Apache Artemis 2.0.0 release vote. Vote passes with 4 +1 binding votes. The following votes were received: Binding: +1 Timothy Bish +1 Clebert Suconic +1 Martyn Taylor +1 Christopher Shannon Non Binding: +1 John Ament +1 Francesco Nigro +1 Howard Gao Thank you to everyone who

Re: [DISCUSS] Single version docs on Artemis

I'd prefer to keep the latest versions of docs for each minor release. I'd squash all the 1.5.x into just 1.5, but keep 1.0, 1.1 etc... The 1.5 docs may not be applicable to 1.4 due to the introduction of new features. 1.0 for example, is very different from 1.5, but we I feel we should still pr

Re: [RESULT] (was Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ Artemis 1.5.4 (RC1))

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:55 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:37 AM Timothy Bish wrote: > > > On 03/13/2017 06:02 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > John, > > > > > > The release artifacts have been uploaded dist.apache.org. It'll

Re: [RESULT] (was Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ Artemis 1.5.4 (RC1))

updated. Just a > friendly reminder. > > > > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM Martyn Taylor wrote: > > > Thanks John. I'll take care of moving the distributions on Monday > morning. > > > > Cheers. > > > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:35 PM, J

Re: [RESULT] (was Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ Artemis 1.5.4 (RC1))

Thanks John. I'll take care of moving the distributions on Monday morning. Cheers. On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:35 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > The vote passes with the following: > > +1 bindings from Clebert Suconic, Timothy Bish, Christopher Shannon, Martyn >

[VOTE] Apache Artemis 2.0.0

Hello all, I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 2.0.0 release. This will be first major bump for Apache Artemis which represents a major milestone. The two major pieces of work in this major release are: * A complete overhaul of the addressing model which is now much more powerful, gives a bet

Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ Artemis 1.5.4 (RC1)

+1 (Binding) Thanks John! On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: > > > +1 > > > > * Checked signature and checksums > > * Built from source and ran some tests > > * Ran the

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream

y inaccurate. > Mirek > > ----- Original Message - > > From: "Martyn Taylor" > > To: dev@activemq.apache.org > > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:48:42 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream > > > > This specific field i

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream

; > - Original Message - > > From: "Jiri Danek" > > To: dev@activemq.apache.org > > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 10:01:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Martyn Taylor > wro

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream

Hi Jiri, Thanks for bringing this up again. One approach to this that avoids having to add new settings or change the default values of current config would be to add a unit parameter to the configuration element. For example 10 This is just an example, but we could standardise across all co

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream

Franz, Contributions to documentation is always welcomed :). A scan of the persistence layer and journal docs would be really useful. Thanks On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, nigro_franz wrote: > An awesome work Clebert! > And to everyone that has made this master filled of such great stuff :)

[HEADS-UP] Apache Artemis 2.0.0

All, As many of you are already aware, Apache Artemis has been developing some great new features including a new and improved addressing model that lends itself well to cross protocol and advance features like exclusive consumer queues, configuration derived semantics for addresses and so on. The

Re: Artemis 1.5.4 release?

Yes. There are users who reported issues that have been fixed and ported to the 1.x branch. Let's get a 1.5.4 out the door asap to get these users unblocked. Cheers On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:42 PM Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > >> > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream

Great work Clebert. I know this was a long hard slog. I'm going to send a 2.0.0 HEADSUP later today. I'm really excited to get all the great stuff we've been doing on master into the hands of users. I think now is a good time to revisit our documentation and examples to ensure everything is up

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

Sounds like a great idea. Cheers. On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: > That sounds good. In the worst case we learned something in the best case > we got the start of a good console. > > Christian > > > On 02.03.2017 03:16, Clebert Suconic wrote: > >> What about this ...

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Christian Schneider < ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > How about creating a hawtio plugin for activemq and artemis at apache So my opinion on this... I feel quite passionately about creating a really great UX for both ActiveMQ and Artemis and I'm not sure that

Re: Artemis MQTT durable messages and Topics

Hi Fabio, Right now there is no way to specify the durability of just the Retained messages. It's something we can easily add as a new feature. Please open a JIRA and we'll look to get it implemented. Regards Martyn On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:08 AM, fabio72 wrote: > hi Justin, > after connec

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3 Release

ors most folks willcurrently be seeing. > > Typically I wait 24+hrs to let essentially all of them update, but a > significant proportion are usually ready between 12-18hrs if in a > hurry. The mirror ages are visible at https://www.apache.org/mirrors/ > > Robbie > > On 20 Februa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3 Release

The distribution mirrors are taking a little while to sync. In the meantime you can grab the latest artifacts from: https://dist.apache.org/ repos/dist/release/activemq/activemq-artemis/1.5.3/ Cheers On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > All, > > I'm pleased t

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3 Release

All, I'm pleased to announce the release of Apache Artemis 1.5.3. This revision release of Apache Artemis contains a number of improvements and bug fixes. The project website for Apache Artemis has been updated include this release and can be found here: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/ A li

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

Thanks for restoring this discussion. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to > 2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark > on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3

Results of Apache Artemis 1.5.3 release vote. Vote passes with 7 binding +1 votes. Binding: +1 Clebert Suconic +1 Claus Ibsen +1 Dejan Bosanac +1 Christopher Shannon +1 Timothy Bish +1 Jim Gomes +1 Martyn Taylor Non Binding: +1 Francesco Nigro Thank you to everyone who contributed and took the

[VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3 (RC2)

Hello all, I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.5.3 release (RC2). This revision release of Apache Artemis 1.5 contains a number of bug fixes and improvements including: Bug - [ARTEMIS-917 ] - Retained messages from file system contain

[CANCEL][VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3

Cancelling this vote will send an RC2 shortly. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Guys, > > I made a bit of a git foobar when doing the release and missed off some > commits that were intended to be cherry-picked from master. > > I'm going to give t

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3

> +1 (Binding) > Just a minor update, the links for the tag is wrong: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-artemis. > git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/1.5.3 > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I'

[VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.3

Hello all, I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.5.3 release. This revision release of Apache Artemis 1.5 contains a number of bug fixes and improvements including: Bug - [ARTEMIS-931 ] - Improve HTTP upgrade connection - [ARTEMIS-934

[DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x stream

All, As discussed in a previous thread [1] Artemis master has had a major bump (due to major model refactor). The great news is that the new model is more flexible and lends itself well to 5.x features like Virtual Topics as well as being consistent across all protocols. The not so good news is

Re: [HEADS-UP] Artemis 1.5.3 release WAS: ARTEMIS-937 affect my productive environment

Clebert, There are a couple of issues around MQTT raised on the dev list. Specifically: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-917 and an Issue I am currently investigating around MQTT message not getting properly ack'd. If we can hold off a couple of days I should get these fixes done.

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ utility project name

+1 on keep the scope to CLI utilities only. Shared libraries is a separate topic. I would, however, like to suggest that we extend the scope to more than just store tools. We have, for example, tools to migrate configurations of Artemis 1.x to the newer 2.0 format and this new project seems like

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 1.5.2 (RC2)

+1 (binding) On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:33 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > +1 Release looks good. > > Actually interesting side note. I previously kicked up a storm over > binaries in the "source" release. Turns out this isn't the actual policy > and needs to get clarified. So feel free to un-exclu

Re: Time to assemble a board report

I've added some Artemis related updates to the board report. Could someone with more day to day experience of ActiveMQ 5.x add some of the main highlights over the past couple of month. Thanks On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Bruce, > > Just returned fro

Re: Time to assemble a board report

Bruce, Just returned from vacation and caught up with email. I'll get to this before the end of today. Regards Martyn On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > The activemq blog inauguration could be a topic ? > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:16 PM John D. Ament > wrote: > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Web site update

I can help with this. Let's sync up in the new yeat On 21 Dec 2016 16:15, "Clebert Suconic" wrote: > H.. I need a web designer's help.. anyone caring to help? or give > us some direction? > > > I was trying to do this by hand.. getting the index.html and make it > look like the artemis websi

Re: [DISCUSS] Web site update

+1. Also happy to provide support/help On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > +1 website needs to be updated and will to assist. > > I'd also throw out there kafka.apache.org and karaf.apache.org as design > concepts to consider as well. > > > > On 12/15/16 11:03 AM, Clebert S

  1   2   3   >