On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 14:41, jgenender wrote:
>
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
> > After it sat going stale and unmaintained for years. It also took an
> > age to follow through on the vote to mark it deprecated.
> >
> > A clear discussion like this around Apollo would have been great far
> > sooner in m
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 15:57, jgenender wrote:
>
> jgenender wrote
> > Robbie Gemmell wrote
> >>> If you are adamant about a website, then pick up a shovel and
> >>> step up to do it. Thats an easy way to get commit.
> >>
> >> I've had commit rights for some years now, but thanks for the tip.
> >
jgenender wrote
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
>>> If you are adamant about a website, then pick up a shovel and
>>> step up to do it. Thats an easy way to get commit.
>>
>> I've had commit rights for some years now, but thanks for the tip.
>
> Interestingly enough, I have never heard of you, but low an
Robbie Gemmell wrote
> After it sat going stale and unmaintained for years. It also took an
> age to follow through on the vote to mark it deprecated.
>
> A clear discussion like this around Apollo would have been great far
> sooner in my view.
It was discussed. IIRC, there was a good discussion
as such it seems fitting that a similar support is provided client side.
The others i am not opinionated on.
Get Outlook for Android
From: Arthur Naseef
Sent: Wednesday 20 March, 01:31
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Status of NMS & CMS
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Chatting
Thanks, Art, for chatting with me today and digging into things.
For the record, I personally consider the *general* matter of status for
NMS and CMS as resolved - the website will stay generally the same in the
high-level presentation for these components. Thanks, all, who contributed
to clarify
I'm not following you here, Jeff. How does the statement you cited imply
"removing them"? If you're referring to my use of "deprecated," I actually
looked up "deprecated" on merriam-webster.com [1] before I wrote that email
to make sure it meant what I wanted to say. The relevant definition is:
>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 23:12, jgenender wrote:
>
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
> > Saying you see value in something is not someone saying they will help
> > maintain it. There being users is not someone saying they will help
> > maintain it. I see one person who might have said they intend to help
> > m
Chatting with Justin about NMS this afternoon, there are some specific
questions that come up. Note the goal here is clarity and updating the
website (thank you Justin for working on the website).
Before jumping into these questions, I want to make clear that I feel
strongly NMS is an important p
Michael André Pearce wrote
> Be good if those PRs for CMS could reopen. It be great to have cms back on
> track and an updated release. IMO
+1
I think it would be great... there are some nice patches in there. We
really need to reopen that discussion for cleaning up the repo and move it
forward
Be good if those PRs for CMS could reopen. It be great to have cms back on
track and an updated release. IMO
Get Outlook for Android
From: jgenender
Sent: Wednesday 20 March, 00:12
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Status of NMS & CMS
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Robbie Gemmell w
alan protasio wrote
> I'm also happy to contribute with those projects where I can.
>
> I was trying to port the NMS to .net core some time ago and I'm happy to
> go
> forward with it.
Thats awesome Alan. Your patches so far have been pretty fantastic. Seeing
you jump into the NMS code would be
Thanks Alan great to hear. Using .net core would be awesome! Def support that
in NMS.
Get Outlook for Android
From: alan protasio
Sent: Tuesday 19 March, 23:39
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Status of NMS & CMS
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
I'm also happy to contri
Robbie Gemmell wrote
> Saying you see value in something is not someone saying they will help
> maintain it. There being users is not someone saying they will help
> maintain it. I see one person who might have said they intend to help
> maintain things on the CPP side. Some other people have eithe
Well keeping you honest, you did start this thread and stated:
jbertram wrote
> Does it make sense anymore to maintain our own stable of
> interfaces & clients? Should we mark these as retried or deprecated?
That kinda implies removing them... just sayin'...
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://active
I'm also happy to contribute with those projects where I can.
I was trying to port the NMS to .net core some time ago and I'm happy to go
forward with it.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:24 AM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> I didn't say they should be removed. I said their status should be
> made clear if
I didn't say they should be removed. I said their status should be
made clear if its established as necessary. I even outlined I dont
think they should be removed from the site (how I interpreted comment
around leaving just a readme) if they are still considered maintained.
I did say that being us
As far as I'm concerned, this thread isn't about removing anything except
stale or unclear information from the website. Removing the projects
themselves has never been on the table.
Justin
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:03 PM Arthur Naseef wrote:
> So if this is an "outsider looking in," then as
Jeff, I apologize for the confusion. I understand that not everybody
follows every thread, and I'm not under the impression that they must. I
tried to lay out my "problem" (although I'd categorize it as more of a
concern) in my initial email on this thread and have tried to clarify along
the way. I
So if this is an "outsider looking in," then as one of the insiders, let's
put this to bed. CPP and NMS are used and are not ready to be removed.
Art
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:22 AM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> My view is that its a discussion around the status of some components,
> which came up
@Robbie,
I'm happy to contribute where I can as I do on many other projects. My
recent works on AMQ has been around the broker and CCP client, I don't
mean to limit where I contribute, those have just been where I've been
active.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:24 PM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I see Ju
My view is that its a discussion around the status of some components,
which came up as part of working on an encompassing problem; the
website. While working toward improvements there Justin has asked what
I think are reasonable enough questions around the status of these
bits.
My outsider-lookin
I see Justin as noting the minimal activity around these bits and
trying to illicit some clearer idea of the people actually still
intending to help maintain them going forward, in part as a means of
gauging whether its worth updating the site content for them. A thread
on dev@ specifically discuss
What are we doing with this thread? Trying to get individual commitments
to putting time into some vague possibility of needed effort in the future?
Just reading this thread is discouraging. I long to be part of a community
that works together to constructively solve problems - real problems. O
To be clear Jamie, is this you saying you intend to help maintain the
CPP client going forward?
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 14:37, Jamie G. wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm still alive - learning life as a new parent, slipping a little on
> reading all the threads for projects I contribute too (Apache, Linu
Hi All,
I'm still alive - learning life as a new parent, slipping a little on
reading all the threads for projects I contribute too (Apache, Linux
Foundation, etc).
In regards to contributing to CPP client, I picked on some issues
there earlier in the year. Discovered that master branch was not t
Justin, what seems to be the problem? Not everyone follows every thread, so
they don't always speak up. They don't have to. The JIRA and comments in
past threads speak for themselves. I am simply pointing that out.
It seems like you are trying to kill this. You have had a couple of people
say
There are a lot of things people can find out by doing their own
investigative leg-work, especially in Open Source. However, I don't see
that as negating the need to provide users with convenience and clarity
where appropriate. I suppose we disagree on where that line is. Perhaps I'm
just extra sen
People are able to see activity and commit history in github. And able to make
their own judgements. Maintaining that anywhere else seems pointless.
Sent from my iPad
> On 19 Mar 2019, at 04:41, Michael André Pearce
> wrote:
>
> So as I’m aware the AMQP works just we didn’t publish to nuge
So as I’m aware the AMQP works just we didn’t publish to nuget. There was some
random queries about if we could publish I think at the time clebert asked this
that caused a query to go to legal. I just checked that ticket it actually
seems like it was a non issue. So we can release it. There was
> There has been activity even in the amqp impl last year as noted, yes it
didnt release but it shows activity and want.
I feel like I could argue the other direction with this. The AMQP
implementation work showed that one developer was interested and when his
priorities changed nobody finished th
You did mention Jamie Goodyear, but I would have expected him to speak for
himself in this regard. The vague reassurance that "others" will help when
something important comes up does not inspire me with confidence. I would
have also expected these others to chime in here to make it clear who is
co
I agree with Jeff here.
Its very similar story with NMS as i noted, its stable api and the open wire
implementation is well used.
There has been activity even in the amqp impl last year as noted, yes it didnt
release but it shows activity and want.
Like wise there are other project
Thanks for the explanation.
I think I mentioned Jamie Goodyear had showed interest to help with JIRAs
and know there are others who will help when important JIRAs pop up. I
think those APIs are simple clients that probably don’t require a lot of
loving care and are relatively stable. I don’t thi
As you may have noticed in another thread on the dev list, I've been
looking at updating the website. When I was browsing through all the
content from NMS & CMS I was surprised to see how much of it was stale -
especially the NMS content. There were references to multiple providers
that had never b
I’m interested where this is coming from. There was a fairly big thread
recently with regard to CPP and patching of which Jamie Goodyear attempted
to put in some patches and was subsequently slapped by Tim Bish. In
addition it appeared that Tim Bish recently released a CPP with a change.
It seem
Ok, my impression *was* that a lot of developers on the .NET world
were using it... and I was trying to avoid sending a wrong signal to
users.
Using a word "Legacy" instead of deprecated would make it better or
the same? (I"m honestly asking here.. no sarcasm intended).
anyway, on this case I'm
It's more than that, Clebert. It's true that both NMS and CMS are APIs.
However, there are numerous implementations of both. Both the API code and
the implementation code are part of the ActiveMQ repositories and in my
opinion all that code needs to have a handful of people willing to support
it if
Entirely correct.
Get Outlook for Android
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:18 AM +, "Clebert Suconic"
wrote:
If there are users there is community. Think about JMS.. barely moving but
massively used and widely implemented.
NMS is an API on this case.
Correct me if I’m wrong h
Entirely correct
Get Outlook for Android
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:02 AM +, "Justin Bertram"
wrote:
Ultimately I'm much more concerned about the development resources
committed to the code-base than I am the number of end users. I think it's
bad for the credibility of the
If there are users there is community. Think about JMS.. barely moving but
massively used and widely implemented.
NMS is an API on this case.
Correct me if I’m wrong here.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:02 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
> Ultimately I'm much more concerned about the development resources
Ultimately I'm much more concerned about the development resources
committed to the code-base than I am the number of end users. I think it's
bad for the credibility of the project to promote a piece of software that
doesn't have good developer support. Five people have commented on this
DISCUSS th
I think the use of nms api is a little more active than you believe.
Then the open wire one has a download on nuget of the last release alone 167k
times according to stats here
https://packages.nuget.org/packages/Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ/
Like wise theres a quite active netstd (not apac
Thanks for clarifying the condition of your NMS AMQP provider contribution.
To be clear, the NMS website [1] lists 8 providers:
- *ActiveMQ* - last release in 2016;
https://github.com/apache/activemq-nms-openwire
- *STOMP* - last release in 2013;
https://github.com/apache/activemq-nms
On 3/7/19 5:02 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
Can you post a link for the implementation you made?
https://github.com/apache/activemq-nms-amqp
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:24 PM Ragnar Paulson wrote:
I've been haphazardly following this discussion. I did some work on the
NMS API last year, poss
Can you post a link for the implementation you made?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:24 PM Ragnar Paulson wrote:
>
> I've been haphazardly following this discussion. I did some work on the
> NMS API last year, possibly the 20-odd commits you refer to.
>
> It is correct to say that NMS is just a general
I've been haphazardly following this discussion. I did some work on the
NMS API last year, possibly the 20-odd commits you refer to.
It is correct to say that NMS is just a general open interface to any
transport, openwire is just one. The work I did was for AMQP. I've
forgotten how many tran
You're right. Both NMS and CMS are APIs + implementations. That's a fair
point.
However, the only two implementations for both which have releases in the
last 9 years are OpenWire and STOMP, and the STOMP providers have
limitations as compared to the OpenWire ones.
It's not clear to me that "its
I think he was wanting to make a new one that wrapping latest qpid, which
would be awesome.
Get Outlook for Android
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:48 PM +, wrote:
So there is already an amqp nms implementation
Get Outlook for Android
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:08 PM
So there is already an amqp nms implementation
Get Outlook for Android
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:08 PM +, "Clebert Suconic"
wrote:
There was a guy at some point trying to implement AMQP on NMS. what
happened to that front? any knows about it?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:04
There was a guy at some point trying to implement AMQP on NMS. what
happened to that front? any knows about it?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:04 PM wrote:
>
> So the point of these is they provide a clean api regardless of underlying
> protocol.
>
>
>
>
> Its not based on openwire so i disagree on yo
So the point of these is they provide a clean api regardless of underlying
protocol.
Its not based on openwire so i disagree on your point there, it is providing a
higher level api abstraction. Which open wire is just one of many protocols
implementing the api.
E.g. amqp switch over fr
So atm im a -0 on this as i know of active users. So i don't think its a good
idea.
But as i personally dont contribute in this area i cant say no to it.
Get Outlook for Android
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:50 PM +, "Justin Bertram"
wrote:
I understand that there are use
I understand that there are users who still use those clients. My concerns
are:
- no real community around those clients
- no active development
- no apparent vision for future improvements
- small pool of developers who've made commits in the last few years
- based on OpenWire
If
So these are still being used by users. We have a group in my org using them.
Not everyone in .net and c++ is reactive... some prefer the jms like apis.
I think low level of development is down to stability.
Get Outlook for Android
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:37 AM +, "Christopher
I would be fine making these projects deprecated but I think there was some
pushback from users on this in the past. But I am all for deprecating
projects that are no longer maintained actively and have alternatives such
as AMQP clients.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:13 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
> As
As I've been looking at updating the ActiveMQ website I've wondered about
the status of both NMS & CMS. Contributors, commits, and releases for them
appear to have been low historically and have dwindled recently even more.
As I understand it, one of the goals of updating the website is to be more
57 matches
Mail list logo
