[Fwd: ApacheCon Training info - please forward to your user lists]

Original Message Subject:ApacheCon Training info - please forward to your user lists Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:42:03 + From: Lars Eilebrecht Reply-To: priv...@qpid.apache.org Organization: The Apache Software Foundation To: p...@apache.org Dear P

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

For me the minimum for us to call X.0 is that we have stable API's that can garuntee backwards compatibility. Perhaps we should aim for protocol version neutral APIs in our next release. If it takes an extra month or two, so be it. This might not be difficult as we have spec people on this project

Re: [VOTE] Changing the version number and what to change it too

> > [ ] Change the release from M.x to only my preferred option from > Question 2, otherwise keep it the same > +1 > Question 2: Change the version number to: > [ ] 0.5 > +1 Rajith

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

Steve Huston wrote: Aidan Skinner wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: If we could agree to get 0-10 into the Java Broker in a timely fashion and then change then go to 1.0, I am fine with that. However, the 'M' is a pain and if we don't reach that point for the n

Re: [VOTE] Changing the version number and what to change it too

2009/2/10 Aidan Skinner : > Question 1: Change the version number from M.x: [X ] Change the release from M.x to any of the other options > Question 2: Change the version number to: [ ] 0.5 [X] 1.5 [ ] 5 RG - Apache Qpid - AMQ

Re: [VOTE] Changing the version number and what to change it too

2009/2/10 Carl Trieloff : >> Question 2: Change the version number to: >> [ ] 0.5 >> [ ] 1.5 >> > > +1, I can go either way, I just want it changed. Do you not have to pick one :-) No dangling chads in apache votes... RG - Apac

Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers

2009/2/10 Robert Godfrey : > I *really* don't want to label Qpid as v0.x because I think that > undermines the maturity that is present in the current product (you > may even know some people releasing commercial product off the back of > it ;-) )... However if you force me to vote now on a non M

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

I can understand the various views of what we need to achieve to call Qpid a more complete product. I agree with many of the goals put forward and I'm glad we're discussing them. However, we have been on the go with releases that users have deployed into production since 2006. For me, the notion t

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Robert Greig wrote: > 2009/2/9 Aidan Skinner : > >>> I think it would be good to have a discussion - hopefully leading to >>> consensus (!) - on what people think we need to have achieved to merit >>> a 1.x release. To my mind, if people agree those items and they

Re: [VOTE] Changing the version number and what to change it too

Aidan Skinner wrote: Since the other thread got canned, let's hope we can get a resolution on this one. Two questions, since there are orthogonal choices to be made and Apache doesn't support condorcet voting. Question 1: Change the version number from M.x: [ ] Change the release from M.x to any

Re: [VOTE] Changing the version number and what to change it too

Question 1: Change the version number from M.x: [x] Change the release from M.x to any of the other options +1 Question 2: Change the version number to: [x] 1.5 +1 Marnie On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote: > > My votes

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

2009/2/9 Aidan Skinner : >> I think it would be good to have a discussion - hopefully leading to >> consensus (!) - on what people think we need to have achieved to merit >> a 1.x release. To my mind, if people agree those items and they are >> different from what is in scope in our next release,

Re: [VOTE] Changing the version number and what to change it too

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote: My votes are > Question 1: Change the version number from M.x: > [ ] Change the release from M.x to only my preferred option from > Question 2, otherwise keep it the same +1 > Question 2: Change the version number to: > [ ] 0.5 +1 - Aidan

[VOTE] Changing the version number and what to change it too

Since the other thread got canned, let's hope we can get a resolution on this one. Two questions, since there are orthogonal choices to be made and Apache doesn't support condorcet voting. Question 1: Change the version number from M.x: [ ] Change the release from M.x to any of the other options [

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > Aidan Skinner wrote: >> I don't think that adding 0-10 support to the Java broker is the only >> step necessary before we declare ourselves 1.0. I'm not sure that >> there's a consensus around what would be Qpid 1.0 just now. > > What el

RE: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

> Aidan Skinner wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Carl Trieloff > wrote: > > > >> If we could agree to get 0-10 into the Java Broker in a > timely fashion and > >> then change then > >> go to 1.0, I am fine with that. However, the 'M' is a pain > and if we don't > >> reach that point

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

Aidan Skinner wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: If we could agree to get 0-10 into the Java Broker in a timely fashion and then change then go to 1.0, I am fine with that. However, the 'M' is a pain and if we don't reach that point for the next release I would prefer

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

Sorry that's ALAN's work! Many apologies John 2009/2/10 John O'Hara > Very well considered, and highly flexible.Compatible with where AMQP1.0 is > heading (wrt TLS handling -- balance of opinion is that TLS will be on the > same port, as it would be for Kerberos based encryption). > > Missed out

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

Very well considered, and highly flexible.Compatible with where AMQP1.0 is heading (wrt TLS handling -- balance of opinion is that TLS will be on the same port, as it would be for Kerberos based encryption). Missed out a TLS example: amqp+tls://foo:b...@tcp:host1:1234/vhost?clientid=baz Which yo

[jira] Commented: (QPID-1658) JMS client OutOfMemoryError when sending 4k messages in rapid succession

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1658?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12672395#action_12672395 ] Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-1658: Douglas, Are you using the c++ broker or t

[jira] Updated: (QPID-1658) JMS client OutOfMemoryError when sending 4k messages in rapid succession

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1658?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Douglas Pew updated QPID-1658: -- Attachment: Producer.java Modified jms producer example that creates 10 4k messages with System.out

[jira] Updated: (QPID-1658) JMS client OutOfMemoryError when sending 4k messages in rapid succession

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1658?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Douglas Pew updated QPID-1658: -- Attachment: Consumer.java Example JMS Client with System.out.println's disabled. > JMS client OutOfMemo

[jira] Created: (QPID-1658) JMS client OutOfMemoryError when sending 4k messages in rapid succession

JMS client OutOfMemoryError when sending 4k messages in rapid succession Key: QPID-1658 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1658 Project: Qpid Issue Type: B

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

Aidan Skinner wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Alan Conway wrote: Does anyone care to jot down what an SSL amqp URL should look like? Would it be ssl:host:port or tcp+ssl:host:port or tcp+tls ... I'm not well up on the ins and outs here. amqps:// and fail if it can't negotiate ssl?

Cancelled: [VOTE] Version Numbers

As I mentioned earlier, please start another vote if you'd like to. Marnie On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Robert Godfrey wrote: > > > > is graduatation not a good enough reason, > > As per Aidan's earlier comment it seems like graduation and the > milestone numbering scheme should not be erron

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

Jonathan Robie wrote: For consistency with HTML URLs, I prefer ; to , http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/appendix/notes.html#h-B.2.2 As clarified by IRC this is referring to the use of "&: as an option separator in the query section rather than the use of "," as an address separato

RE: Extending ACL's with SE-QPid

Hello, A while back (Oct 21st of 2008) Carl and I briefly discussed modifying ACL.cpp to read SELinux contexts instead of the ACL files. Has anyone given this any light? If not I'll whip up a prototype to see how the two work together. Thanks, -Josh In October 2008 Joshua Kramer wrote: H

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

For consistency with HTML URLs, I prefer ; to , http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/appendix/notes.html#h-B.2.2 [quote] B.2.2 Ampersands in URI attribute values The URI that is constructed when a form is submitted

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Alan Conway wrote: > Does anyone care to jot down what an SSL amqp URL should look like? Would it > be ssl:host:port or tcp+ssl:host:port or tcp+tls ... I'm not well up on the > ins and outs here. amqps:// and fail if it can't negotiate ssl? - Aidan -- Apache

RE: [jira] Commented: (QPID-1625) C++ tests need Linux-isms changed to build on Windows

Hey folks. I've been working with Cliff to get QPID running and tested on Windows. I've been watching the traffic on these topics and holding back my responses while I get to know the layout. I have some of it figured out, but I'm sure there is much more to learn. I've been working on getting t

Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers

> > is graduatation not a good enough reason, As per Aidan's earlier comment it seems like graduation and the milestone numbering scheme should not be erroneously linked. > and that everyone wants to get rid of it? > I see this situation as akin to the vote on the Monarchy in Australia... The ma

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

Does anyone care to jot down what an SSL amqp URL should look like? Would it be ssl:host:port or tcp+ssl:host:port or tcp+tls ... I'm not well up on the ins and outs here. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project

Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers

Robert Godfrey wrote: 2009/2/10 Carl Trieloff : Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the majority this that *now* is the correct time to change. While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we ar

[jira] Commented: (QPID-1625) C++ tests need Linux-isms changed to build on Windows

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1625?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12672291#action_12672291 ] Alan Conway commented on QPID-1625: --- I'd be inclined to put that in sys. Its only used in

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

Thanks for the feedback, here's an updated proposal that takes on the suggestions so far: Aidan + Martin: using user:pass@ syntax. Martin: updated the examples Jonathan: added note on percent-encoding. Other changes: updated my references to the current URI spec http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc39

Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers

2009/2/10 Carl Trieloff : > >> Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this >> vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the >> majority this that *now* is the correct time to change. >> >> While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we are doing >> o

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: > I don't care when we decide to call it 1.0, but a would like to get rid of > the 'M' Totally. Death to the M! ;) - Aidan -- Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing http://qpid.apache.org

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

Aidan Skinner wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: If we could agree to get 0-10 into the Java Broker in a timely fashion and then change then go to 1.0, I am fine with that. However, the 'M' is a pain and if we don't reach that point for the next release I would pre

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

Nice. I assume URL encoding is used for spaces and such? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_string#URL_encoding Jonathan Martin Ritchie wrote: 2009/2/9 Aidan Skinner : On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Alan Conway wrote: I really like the proposal, and I think having a standardised AMQP

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: > If we could agree to get 0-10 into the Java Broker in a timely fashion and > then change then > go to 1.0, I am fine with that. However, the 'M' is a pain and if we don't > reach that point for > the next release I would prefer to go to 0.5

Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers

Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the majority this that *now* is the correct time to change. While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we are doing ourselves a disservice if we do not wait th

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

Robert Godfrey wrote: 2009/2/10 Aidan Skinner : (moving this to another thread so as to make tallying the vote easier) On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Robert Greig wrote: 2009/2/9 Robert Godfrey : I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be > 1.0

Re: WsDmAdapterTest Failure

Hi Martin, the problem could be one of the following : - the embedded web server is not started (port 8080 is busy), but I don't see any startup errors. - the embedded web server is started but it's not accepting requests on localhost:8080 Could be so kindly to send me the output of the followinf

Re: WsDmAdapterTest Failure

No filter, just downloaded... thank you very much :) I'll let you know as soon as possible. Andrea 2009/2/10 Martin Ritchie > 2009/2/9 Andrea Gazzarini : > > Thanks Martin but I think that there should be something else on your > > TEST-org.apache.qpid.management.wsdm.WsDmAdapter.xml (this is

Re: WsDmAdapterTest Failure

2009/2/9 Andrea Gazzarini : > Thanks Martin but I think that there should be something else on your > TEST-org.apache.qpid.management.wsdm.WsDmAdapter.xml (this is the name > of the result file on my machine I don't know if is the same on your > env) > If so could you send me that? Here is both th

Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.

2009/2/9 Aidan Skinner : > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Alan Conway wrote: > > I really like the proposal, and I think having a standardised AMQP url > is a big win. > >> ** Differences from Qpid Java format >> >> Addresses are at the start of the URL rather than in the "brokerlist" >> option.

Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers

2009/2/10 Marnie McCormack : > Rob, > > I seized the moment and started a vote thread. Carl had already tried to > bring this debate to a vote ... > > You could start your own alternative vote thread - anyone could have started > the vote here, and provide the options you'd like us to vote on. Plea

Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers

Rob, I seized the moment and started a vote thread. Carl had already tried to bring this debate to a vote ... You could start your own alternative vote thread - anyone could have started the vote here, and provide the options you'd like us to vote on. Please do so if you'd like. >From my pov, gr

[jira] Updated: (QPID-1628) Move shared state from AMQMessage to QueueEntry

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1628?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Aidan Skinner updated QPID-1628: Assignee: Martin Ritchie (was: Aidan Skinner) Status: Open (was: Ready To Review) qpid/java/

[jira] Created: (QPID-1657) Allows amqp.properties file to be found in the CLASSPATH

Allows amqp.properties file to be found in the CLASSPATH Key: QPID-1657 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1657 Project: Qpid Issue Type: Improvement Components:

[jira] Deleted: (QPID-1656) llows an amqp.properties file to be found

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1656?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Arnaud Simon deleted QPID-1656: --- > llows an amqp.properties file to be found > --- > >

[jira] Created: (QPID-1656) llows an amqp.properties file to be found

llows an amqp.properties file to be found --- Key: QPID-1656 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1656 Project: Qpid Issue Type: Improvement Components: Java Client R

Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)

2009/2/10 Aidan Skinner : > (moving this to another thread so as to make tallying the vote easier) > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Robert Greig > wrote: > >> 2009/2/9 Robert Godfrey : >> >>> I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be > 1.0 >> >> I think it would be good to