I need to apply
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1460552 to the 0.22
release branch to fix a compilation error on windows that I introduced
in an earlier commit before branching.
The change is trivial and necessary.
-
Approved for 0.22.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> I need to apply http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1460552
> to the 0.22 release branch to fix a compilation error on windows that I
> introduced in an earlier commit before branching.
>
> The change is triv
Hi, everyone. Qpid 0.22 beta is available from revision 1460488 of
the new release branch.
Beta: http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.22-beta/
Release branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.22/
Two things are now the case as a result. First, trunk has opened up
for unenc
On 03/25/2013 10:36 AM, Justin Ross wrote:
Approved for 0.22.
Thanks! Merged to branch: http://svn.apache.org/r1460620
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
I need to apply http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1460552
to the 0.22 release branch to fix a compilat
Frase,
Another possibility is qpid/extras/qmf. That's where the Python
implementation is. We've used the extras directory as a place to put
more layered functionality, or things that might someday become
stand-alone projects.
-Ted
On 03/24/2013 03:15 AM, Fraser Adams wrote:
Hello all,
I'
Hi Fraser,
What you have now noticed is a step in our ongoing effort to reorganise the
broker internals, remove the old XML configuration files, and make the
broker pretty much entirely configurable through the management interfaces.
The particular plugable management interface you found and used
hello..
i followed as per the INSTALL file.
then while doing "make all" i got that error..
i am giving that screen shot a attachment ... Please have a look
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional
This mailing list does not accept attachments. You may have to paste the
results of your build into your e-mail.
Kim
On Sat, 2013-03-23 at 14:41 +0530, Reddi Rajendra P wrote:
> hello..
> i followed as per the INSTALL file.
> then while doing "make all" i got that error..
> i am giving that scree
Hi all,
The subject of commit log messages has come up a few times recently, so I
have run the script I used a couple of years ago when I brought the subject
up originally. I ran it last week for the 6 month period between Sept 19th
and March 19th, and the results were as follows:
Qpid trunk:
Wit
JAkub Scholz created QPID-4666:
--
Summary: Incorrect exception message returned in MessageSubscribe
when permission is denied
Key: QPID-4666
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4666
Project: Q
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4664?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13612727#comment-13612727
]
Jin-Ghee Lu commented on QPID-4664:
---
Our software is the client side on Windows, and the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4666?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
JAkub Scholz updated QPID-4666:
---
Attachment: client.log
Log file from the client
> Incorrect exception message returne
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4666?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13612739#comment-13612739
]
JAkub Scholz commented on QPID-4666:
The client sends a following command:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4666?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13612739#comment-13612739
]
JAkub Scholz edited comment on QPID-4666 at 3/25/13 3:51 PM:
-
T
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4664?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13612749#comment-13612749
]
Steve Huston commented on QPID-4664:
Wireshark won't be able to tell you the _content_
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4666?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
JAkub Scholz updated QPID-4666:
---
Attachment: QPID-4666.patch
The promised patch ...
> Incorrect exception message retu
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4666?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
JAkub Scholz updated QPID-4666:
---
Attachment: QPID-4666a.patch
Or maybe even better, we can change it just for the AMQSecurityException
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4662?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Irina Boverman closed QPID-4662.
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: Future
Issue was corrected starting with March 23 builds.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4663?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Irina Boverman closed QPID-4663.
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: Future
Issue corrected starting with March 23, 2013 builds.
On 19 March 2013 16:01, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > On 03/19/2013 02:55 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> >>
> >> Speaking with Gordon, I came to the conclusion that we first need to
> >> figure out what we mean by Equals.
> >> Does equals mean,
I didn't mean to let this issue slide.
I think as an interim solution I will add a check for subjects.
Longer term I think (especially when we work on the new JMS client) we
should probably look at implementing this for Queues and Topics as
follows.
1. Queues, if getQueueName() is the same then th
Hi Ted,
I was torn between extras and tools. I guess what sold me on tools at
the moment was because I've noticed that a ruby subdirectory has just
been added there, so having a Java one too seems to make some sense.
Also as part of the Java QMF stuff I've done I've striven to add ports
of the
Actually I'd like to take a step back and ask what are our plans for
QMF and management in general.
Fraser, this is in no way to discourage you or devalue your current
contribution.
But as you rightly pointed out in the later part of your email, we
should look at the bigger picture and see if we ca
I haven't been following this discussion all that closely, but I did notice
two things I wanted to comment on:
(1) The fact that the JMS client maps all topics into the singular
amq.topic exchange is kind of weird and very different from the way the
other messaging clients behave.
Using addresses
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> I haven't been following this discussion all that closely, but I did notice
> two things I wanted to comment on:
>
> (1) The fact that the JMS client maps all topics into the singular
> amq.topic exchange is kind of weird and very differen
Did I tell you how much time I've expended on all this work?? :-/
it's certainly pretty discouraging. It wouldn't be so bad except that
I'm not aware at all of any mechanism other than QMF yet in place to
control the C++ broker and I personally feel the JMX approach on the
Java broker is flaw
On 03/25/2013 07:25 PM, Fraser Adams wrote:
I'd have no problem migrating things to something new (sigh!!) but I
really think that the QMF Management GUI I put together is pretty good
and I had actually just got things working so that I could talk to both
the C++ and Java brokers using both qpid-
On 25 March 2013 20:58, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Rajith Attapattu >wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Rafael Schloming
> > wrote:
> > JMS does provide the Destination interface, and Queues and Topics are
> > indeed special cases.
> >
> > To provide s
So, firstly I want to echo what Gordon has said.
Speaking for myself I am very grateful for the work you have been
doing on the QMF adapter for the Java broker. I can only apologise
for some of the issues that you hve found in terms of
incompatibilities and I thank you for your patience in dealin
On 03/25/2013 06:32 PM, Fraser Adams wrote:
If there's strength of feeling that extras is more appropriate then
that's fine and I'll be OK with that, but then the location of the ruby
stuff seems inconsistent (I'm not knocking the ruby stuff, just trying
to figure the most consistent place).
I
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Fraser Adams
wrote:
> Did I tell you how much time I've expended on all this work?? :-/
>
>
> it's certainly pretty discouraging. It wouldn't be so bad except that I'm
> not aware at all of any mechanism other than QMF yet in place to control the
> C++ broker and I
Hey Robbie,
Thanks for the comprehensive response - all useful stuff, always on the
bleeding edge me :-)
as in "it's not bleeding working again" :-D
It's fun to know "I think you are the first to ever ask about a change
". I guess that I had assumed that a plugin architecture was intended to
On 25 March 2013 20:57, Fraser Adams wrote:
> Hey Robbie,
> Thanks for the comprehensive response - all useful stuff, always on the
> bleeding edge me :-)
> as in "it's not bleeding working again" :-D
>
>
Sorry about that... but there is a reason we haven't declared a release to
be 1.0 yet :-)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Rafael Schloming
> wrote:
> This is not the case since the time we implemented the addressing stuff.
> (used to be the case before that).
>
> The JMS client behaves the same as the messaging API.
>
Are yo
On 25/03/13 19:47, Rob Godfrey wrote:
In the meantime have you got a list of all the areas where the Java
Broker and C++ broker are incompatible? I'm sure Gordon and I wouldbe
very interested in that and would do our utmost to try to narrow that
gap.
Thanks again,
Rob
Hi Rob, I'm afraid that I
On 25 March 2013 21:21, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Fraser Adams
> wrote:
> > Did I tell you how much time I've expended on all this work?? :-/
> >
> >
> > it's certainly pretty discouraging. It wouldn't be so bad except that I'm
> > not aware at all of any mechani
On 25 March 2013 20:52, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/25/2013 06:32 PM, Fraser Adams wrote:
>
>> If there's strength of feeling that extras is more appropriate then
>> that's fine and I'll be OK with that, but then the location of the ruby
>> stuff seems inconsistent (I'm not knocking the ruby stuff,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> Actually I'd like to take a step back and ask what are our plans for
> QMF and management in general.
> Fraser, this is in no way to discourage you or devalue your current
> contribution.
> But as you rightly pointed out in the later part
On 25 March 2013 21:27, Fraser Adams wrote:
> On 25/03/13 19:47, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> In the meantime have you got a list of all the areas where the Java
>> Broker and C++ broker are incompatible? I'm sure Gordon and I wouldbe
>> very interested in that and would do our utmost to try to narro
On 25 March 2013 21:32, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Rajith Attapattu
> wrote:
> > Actually I'd like to take a step back and ask what are our plans for
> > QMF and management in general.
> > Fraser, this is in no way to discourage you or devalue your current
> > con
On 25/03/13 20:21, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
f management tools that doesn't play nice with both
brokers.
I'm worried about adding another to the mix given that the Java broker
seems to have a different strategy for management.
Well yes and no. From what I've seen the Java broker has a pluggable
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 25 March 2013 21:32, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Rajith Attapattu
> > wrote:
> > > Actually I'd like to take a step back and ask what are our plans for
> > > QMF and management in general.
> > > Fraser, t
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9903/
---
(Updated March 25, 2013, 9:39 p.m.)
Review request for qpid, Rafael Schloming, J
On 25/03/13 20:38, Rob Godfrey wrote:
We should definitely try to address the cases where queue arguments simply
have different names. Things like ring queues are a little odd. In the
C++ broker they make a lot of sense because of the design of the persistent
store in use.
I'm not sure that it
On 25 March 2013 23:05, Fraser Adams wrote:
> On 25/03/13 20:38, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>>
>> We should definitely try to address the cases where queue arguments simply
>> have different names. Things like ring queues are a little odd. In the
>> C++ broker they make a lot of sense because of the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10020/
---
(Updated March 26, 2013, 1:54 a.m.)
Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Ted
46 matches
Mail list logo
