http://activemq.apache.org/ is live :-)
No we need to remove the Incubator stuff from it :-)
-Brian
Doh! I have been so pre-occupied with work I didn't mention. Bad me!
We graduated! Now to start pestering infra... ;-)
-Brian
On Jan 22, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Yeah, I was expecting the board resolution to be voted, as I'm not
sure it is yet ... In all cases, I guess the
4.1 has been released.
-Brian
On Dec 18, 2006, at 11:40 AM, sileshi wrote:
Is 4.1 released? If not, what is rlelease plans?
-Sileshi
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 10/4/06, yaussy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry about that. I'd forgotten about the wireformat stuff.
Looks like
you
can set
4.1.0 has been officially released :-)
-Brian
On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:40 PM, bluedolphin wrote:
Sorry, i get confused. Currently yes. The 4.1 release is still in
voting?.
Is it mean that 4.1 still unofficially released?
Thanks
James.Strachan wrote:
On 11/28/06, nabble615 [EMAIL
+1
-Brian
On Nov 21, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Adrian Co wrote:
+1 :)
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Howdy ActiveMQ Mentors...
This is just a gentle reminder that this vote is still open and
looking for at least 1 more incubator PMC binding vote to make it
official. Please take a moment and review the
I am all for it, personally, with 1.6 due out any week now.
-Brian
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi folks,
How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
has a much better set of
Yes!
We should present a fully formed resolution, based on the OFBiz thread.
-Brian
On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I think this project is like the 40 year old virgin still living at
home with his parents. lol! Don't you think it's about time we get
the ball rolling on
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Want to take the lead on that? :) please!
Sure. Any nominations for proposed PMC Chair?
-Brian
On 11/15/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes!
We should present a fully formed resolution, based on the OFBiz
thread
+1
-Brian
On Oct 29, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Some last minute NOTICE issues were still present in the 5th release
candidate of the
4.0.2 build. We have also received confirmation from Apache legal
discuss that it's ok to include work covered by the Creative Commons
Attribution
+1
-Brian
On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Some copyright header/licence/notice issues were found in the 4th
release
candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut and RC 5 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes
and it's
available here:
I'll be there!
-Brian
On Oct 7, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Hey everyone,
Just wondering who was going from the ActiveMQ crowd. Tim Bish and I
received the approval to take a company-sponsored boondoggle for
our first
ApacheCon :) ... should be a good opportunity to put names
I've applied Dejan's patch locally, but it needs some changes to
preserve the current behavior. I'll make them and check it in within
a couple days.
-Brian
On Oct 6, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Brian McCallister wrote:
D'oh, I did miss it, and it is a better solution :-)
I'll roll back my change
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-943?page=all ]
Brian McCallister reassigned AMQ-943:
-
Assignee: Brian McCallister
Pluggable Stomp Message Mapping
---
Key: AMQ-943
URL
some of these ideas for your solution or we can
merge them
in one.
Regards,
Dejan
On 10/6/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just checked in a first take on pluggable stomp to amq translation.
Right now there is one interface defined for doing both message
conversions
Just checked in a first take on pluggable stomp to amq translation.
Right now there is one interface defined for doing both message
conversions and destination name conversions.
The behavior for the legacy conversion scheme is identical, I just
moved the code around so that those four
(Replying at top as it is a long message :-)
The mapping be configured by naming a converter of some kind in the
activemq.xml
This is a bit tricksier than it might be because the activemq.xml is
just a specialized spring config which reads a lot of stuff from a
URL syntax, and adding
Hmm, I can look into this but won't have a good opportunity to until
after September 9 (a week and half from now). If you dig into the
stomp transport stuff, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to put in,
but... that is a guesstimate.
If it hasn't been done by Sept 9 I can dig through, but
Hey folks, I want to go remove the snapshots and RC's from our dist
directory. They realy shouldn't be there.
Any objections?
-Brian
I generally do 120 as well :-)
-Brian
On Aug 24, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Agreed.
120 is much more useful :)
On 8/24/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the 80 char limit is antiquated... now that most folks have
displays that can quite easily display more
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeff Tupholme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 18, 2006 9:17:17 AM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [stomp-dev] messages are not redelivered in activemq-4.0.2
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hoping for some help in understanding STOMP semantics.
On Aug 16, 2006, at 12:32 AM, James Strachan wrote:
On 8/16/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ActiveMQ committers have decided to aim for TLP status (1), as
such we need to get a PPMC in place. Thus far we have been working
under a committer votes all count style (really
+1
-Brian
On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Some NOTICE file issues were found in the 2nd release candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut and RC 3 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes
and it's available here:
http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC3/
+1 from me :-)
On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Brian McCallister wrote:
I'd like to start the ball rolling to have ActiveMQ graduate to a
top level project at Apache.
The original intent was to become a sub-project of Geronimo, but I
think that this would be a disservice to ActiveMQ, which
I'd like to start the ball rolling to have ActiveMQ graduate to a top
level project at Apache.
The original intent was to become a sub-project of Geronimo, but I
think that this would be a disservice to ActiveMQ, which is quite
capable of standing on it's own, and therefore, should be a
Are you making this change for 4.0.2?
-Brian
On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:24 AM, James Strachan wrote:
Looks good to me. Thanks for sorting this out Hiram.
On 7/27/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey.. I opened issue http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/
AMQ-848 to
track.
Folks
Yum, most of the errors seem to be of the form:
Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: java.net.URISyntaxException:
Illegal character in path at index 18: file:/C:/Documents and
Settings/administrator/Desktop/incubator-activemq-4.0.1/activemq-core/
Adrian,
ActiveMQ is not officially certified on any platform, though we
(ActiveMQ developers, or at least me) will certainly try to help you
out on pretty much any platform we can.
The best thing to do is to download the source distribution and run
the test suite. It is pretty
FYI: http://www.infoq.com/news/amq
AMQP looks to be an attempt at wire protocol specification like
openwire or stomp.
Probably good for us to look at, though the licensing probably needs
to bounce through [EMAIL PROTECTED] before we do much as it is not
immediately clear if it is okay. I
+1
Releasing every couple weeks may be a BIT fast though. Perhaps if we
have that many outstanding bugs we should rethink how we do release
stabilisation?
On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Adrian Co wrote:
+1 Release ActiveMQ 4.0.1
Regards,
Adrian Co
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Since the 4.0
+1
-Brian
On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I'd like ActiveMQ to have follow the release early and release often
mantra. So what do you guys think about getting a 4.0.1 release done
by early next week? We have already done quite a few bug fixes in the
4.0 branch and I don't
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I wonder if we're big enough to be a TLP. Thoughts?
(very big) +1 to TLP. We have plenty of folks to provide oversight,
and the scope is too big to fit well in any umbrella.
-Brian
and several conversations to get
right.
How does this sound?
Nate
On 6/13/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 13, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Could you guys point me to a place in AMQ where this sort of thing
is being
done? That would save me a lot
On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Mittler, Nathan wrote:
Ok, so application-level is referring to the C++ library, not the user
of the library? If so that eliminates the need for another header
like
amq-msg-type.
We still want the transform header for the stomp adaptor though, in
order to
Let's run down the checklist and make sure our ducks are all in a
row. I have a good feeling about it =)
-Brian
On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Folks, especially you ActiveMQ Mentors out there...
I feel that ActiveMQ is ready if incubator graduation. For the looks
of
On Jun 13, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Could you guys point me to a place in AMQ where this sort of thing
is being
done? That would save me a lot of searching =)
I'm viewing this problem from the client side - the Stomp C++
client that
Tim Bish and I are writing currently
JMSType is a reserved header in JMS, for use at the application
level. I think what you are proposing is more accurately an ActiveMQ
specific transform header. I think this type of transform should
either be a real, arbitrary, pluggable, transform mechanism, or
should not be done.
I
On Jun 12, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Agreed ... using the type header is not an option.
--- From the bug report ---
It isn't possible to reuse the type header (JMSType) for the
purpose of sending through the information as to what type of message
it is (text or bytes). So
Hi folks, wanted to have a quick discussion about release plans and
making releases go more smoothly based on how 4.0 has gone so far =)
Proposed release process:
1) Someone decides we need a release. They cut a release candidate,
using the planned version number, and post it to their home
On May 17, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
from the specified remote repositories:
central (http://repo1.maven.org/maven2),
apache.snapshots (http://cvs.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository),
codehaus-snapshot (http://snapshots.maven.codehaus.org/maven2),
apache-maven1-snapshot
types such as:
activemq-map, activemq-stream, and activemq-object where ActiveMQ
would define the expected body encoding for those types.
Regards,
Hiram
On 4/23/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to correct a design wart in ActiveMQ's Stomp implementation --
originally Stomp
APR's versioning guidelines are an awfully good practice, in my
experience.
http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html
-Brian
On Jan 15, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 1/14/2006 9:02 PM:
I've seen several posts about the upcoming 1.0.x release and 1.1
and
+1 for Jetty
-Brian
On Dec 8, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Ok then based on this...
I hope that this group takes into the account of all votes,
including those that use the app server, our community and users.
If we cannot be neutral, then minimally we should let the users
[ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor ActiveMQ ServiceMix during
incubation as sub-projects of Geronimo
[ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
[ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: ___
+1
43 matches
Mail list logo
