Re: Qpid Dispatch Router - libwebsockets optional or mandatory?

cmake's library finding stuff has an unstable history, it may be an issue > with older cmake that we need to work around. > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Keith W wrote: >> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 11:58, Gordon Sim wrote: >> > >> > On 08/08/18 11

Re: Qpid Dispatch Router - libwebsockets optional or mandatory?

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 11:58, Gordon Sim wrote: > > On 08/08/18 11:49, Keith W wrote: > > I don't think the Dispatch Router's code or documentation makes it > > clear if libwebsockets optional or mandatory at the moment. I believe > > from DISPATCH-893 it

Qpid Dispatch Router - libwebsockets optional or mandatory?

Hi all, I don't think the Dispatch Router's code or documentation makes it clear if libwebsockets optional or mandatory at the moment. I believe from DISPATCH-893 it is the latter. Furthermore, Cmake is not programmatically enforcing the libwebsockets >= 2.1.0 restriction. Here are the details.

[AMQP1.0] Intended use-case of transaction-error transaction-timeout

An AMQP1.0 question has arisen during the implementation of QPID-8091[Broker-J] [AMQP 1.0] Store transaction timeout. I would like some guidance as to the best way to use AMQP 1.0 in this situation. Background: Broker-J has a defence against long running store transactions. The reason this def

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal to mark "Won't Fix" all open "JMS AMQP 0-x" JIRAs

Thanks for the responses. The update described was made to JIRA today (65 issues in total). On 30 January 2018 at 10:24, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 29 January 2018 at 20:31, Gordon Sim wrote: >> On 29/01/18 14:15, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: >>> >>> Keith, >>> >>> Your suggestion looks reasonable to

[DISCUSS] Proposal to mark "Won't Fix" all open "JMS AMQP 0-x" JIRAs

The JIRA component "JMS AMQP 0-x" corresponds to the old 0-8..0-10 Qpid JMS Client. As development work on this component is ceased, I proposing to mark all open JIRAs tagged for it as Won't Fix with a short explanatory comment. "Won't Fix. Development work on this Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x client has c

Netty regression in 4.1.18 - does this affect Qpid JMS Client 0.28.0?

Hi Robbie, Tim I noticed the news on the Netty website that there was a regression in 4.1.18 affecting the native transport (#7507). 4.1.19 is already out. http://netty.io/news/2017/12/18/4-1-19-Final.html Qpid JMS 0.28.0 included Netty 4.1.18 (QPIDJMS-347) so I expect that this might affect use

[SECURITY] [CVE-2017-15702] Apache Qpid Broker-J Authentication Vulnerability on HTTP Ports

CVE-2017-15702: Apache Qpid Broker-J authentication vulnerability on HTTP ports Severity: Important Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: Versions 0.18 through 0.32 Description: If the broker is configured with different authentication providers on different ports one of wh

Re: Qpid Broker J tools - mercury, qpidbench etc - anyone still using this code?

e-list so I > request that it is kept explicitly. > > Thanks. > > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 16:36 +0100, Keith W wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Does anyone retain any interest in the code beneath qpid-broker-j/tools? >> >> https://github.com/apache/qpid-brok

Qpid Broker J tools - mercury, qpidbench etc - anyone still using this code?

Hello all, Does anyone retain any interest in the code beneath qpid-broker-j/tools? https://github.com/apache/qpid-broker-j/tree/master/tools There are a number of programs under there that appear to be receiving no active development and to the best my knowledge are unused. The code has hard-

Re: Next Qpid JMS (0.24.0) / Proton-J (0.20.0) release dates?

he next four to six weeks, otherwise we might push things forward ourselves. On 30 June 2017 at 11:06, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 29 June 2017 at 13:06, Keith W wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Are there release dates in mind for Proton-J (0.20.0) and Qpid JMS (0.24.0)? > &

Next Qpid JMS (0.24.0) / Proton-J (0.20.0) release dates?

Hello, Are there release dates in mind for Proton-J (0.20.0) and Qpid JMS (0.24.0)? We are moving towards a Qpid Broker J major release next quarter. The release backlog includes QPID-7787 [1] which will utilise the AMQP 1.0 additional data field of the SASL outcome [2]. In order to be useful

Re: QPID 0.32 going out of memory

Akhil, You should be aware that the 0.32 version of the Qpid Java Broker was affected by a number of CVEs. See Apache Qpid's Security page for information. https://qpid.apache.org/components/java-broker/security.html You ought to be planning to upgrade to a newer version. You get get the lates

Apache CI Qpid-JMS* jobs temporary locked to Maven 3.3

All, I temporarily locked the Qpid-JMS* jobs to Maven 3.3 to avoid the Jenkins/Maven issue being discussed on the infra@ list (thread: Maven 3.5 and NoSuchFieldError: DEFAULT_USER_SETTINGS_FILE"). Once the issue is resolved, I'll revert it to the Maven (latest). cheers, Keith. -

Re: Help to build the Java Qpid broker build from source

+us...@qpid.apache.org Hello Girish Glad to see you are taking a look at Qpid. There is some general advice about compiling from source/running tests on the command line at the following page. As you'll see it needs Java 1.8 and Maven 3.2. Some of the some system tests spawn external processes

Re: Support for Qpid cpp broker in java broker system tests

We are very much still aspiring to move the 'pure' JMS 1.1 to a separate module. This will be a sibling of the new qpid-systests-jms_2.0 module. We are currently working on QPID-7665 which will add the ability to write AMQP 1.0 protocol based system tests - with test cases drawn straight from

Re: Inconsistent behaviour during performance testing

Hello Antonin Unfortunately, the Apache mailing lists strip attachments. Please find an alternative way to share your graphs. Can you tell us more about the tests you are running? Version of the Java Broker? Which client are you using? Which version? If the older Qpid JMS Client AMQP 0-x - wh

Re: AMQP 1.0/Python - Question re. encoding of maps and lists : failing qpid_tests.broker_1_0.translation.TranslationTests.test_translate* against Java Broker

>> https://qpid.apache.org/components/messaging-api/index.html > > > The qpid.messaging python client (pure python) is of course supported. > However at present it only speak AMQP 0-10 and no-one has indicated any > plans to add 1.0 support to it. > > The swigged version of the c++ equivalent is a

Re: AMQP 1.0/Python - Question re. encoding of maps and lists : failing qpid_tests.broker_1_0.translation.TranslationTests.test_translate* against Java Broker

On 22 December 2016 at 12:11, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 21/12/16 17:51, Keith W wrote: >> >> I believed that Python Messaging derived its AMQP 1.0 support by way >> of the swigged client. Are we saying this is deprecated? > > > It is more that it has never been consi

Re: AMQP 1.0/Python - Question re. encoding of maps and lists : failing qpid_tests.broker_1_0.translation.TranslationTests.test_translate* against Java Broker

On 20 December 2016 at 18:34, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 20/12/16 18:20, Keith W wrote: >> >> On 20 December 2016 at 10:14, Gordon Sim wrote: >>> >>> On 19/12/16 15:57, Keith W wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> By debugging the Java Broker

Re: AMQP 1.0/Python - Question re. encoding of maps and lists : failing qpid_tests.broker_1_0.translation.TranslationTests.test_translate* against Java Broker

On 20 December 2016 at 10:14, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 19/12/16 15:57, Keith W wrote: >> >> By debugging the Java Broker's translation module, I can see that the >> AMQP 1.0 publishing end is sending the map encoded within a >> DataSection. This surprises me - I wa

AMQP 1.0/Python - Question re. encoding of maps and lists : failing qpid_tests.broker_1_0.translation.TranslationTests.test_translate* against Java Broker

Hi all, The qpid_tests.broker_1_0.translation.TranslationTests.test_translate* tests fail against the Java Broker. This is not a new problem. The tests have been excluded against the Java Broker since I first enabled the Jenkins job about six months ago (pending investigation) The test I am focu

Re: JMS - Behaviour of multiple invocations of QueueBrowser#getEnumeration

Thanks - the test is now changed and is passing. On 6 December 2016 at 10:12, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 6 December 2016 at 00:41, Rob Godfrey wrote: >> On 6 December 2016 at 01:29, Keith W wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm looking at some f

JMS - Behaviour of multiple invocations of QueueBrowser#getEnumeration

Hi all, I'm looking at some fails reported by the Java System Testsuite when run against the Qpid JMS Client. One failing group is related to QueueBrowsers, for example QueueBrowserAutoAckTest#testBrowsingWithSelector. The test assumes that each invocation of QueueBrowser#getEnumeration() produc

Re: Detecting presence of AMQP-MANAGEMENT server capability from the Qpid JMS Client

>> >> For now, given you are presumably talking about the Qpid Java broker >> >> herecan you simply try opening the link and have it fail if not >> >> supported? I'd guess if you try to attach to the management address, >> >> since it doesnt automatically create entities by default it would hav

Detecting presence of AMQP-MANAGEMENT server capability from the Qpid JMS Client

Hi, In QPID-7556, we intend to advertise the Qpid Broker for Java AMQP Management ability with an AMQP 1.0 open performative offered-capability [1] of 'AMQP-MANAGEMENT'. As a user of the Qpid JMS Client, how do I detect that the server offers this capability? At the moment, from what I see of th

Re: A java listener Using qpid-amqp-1.0 stops listening to the service bus without giving any exception

Hi Naresh >From your link it looks like you are using the older 'qpid-amqp-1-0-client-jms' AMQP 1.0 JMS client. Development work on this client ceased quite some time ago. Development focus is now on https://qpid.apache.org/components/jms/. This too is a AMQP 1.0 complete JMS client. Try switc

Re: DRAFT: Dispute of CVSS Score for CVE-2016-4974

Lorenz, The suggested text looks reasonable to me and meets the requirements of NIST's FAQ entry "I would like to dispute the score of a vulnerability. What should I do?" https://nvd.nist.gov/faq#440bb045-9d20-4e17-b463-8d45ff555ef1 cheers Keith On 31 August 2016 at 13:19, Lorenz Quack wrote: >

Re: Qpid's CI jobs - Jenkins JDK/Maven Matrix consolidation

JDK change. It looks to be mainly a test > issue, the expected connection failure happened before it was > expecting..a bit of surprise that it is actually attempting the > underlying connection earlier than expected from first glance, so also > something to look at. > > Robbie >

Re: Qpid's CI jobs - Jenkins JDK Matrix consolidation

gt; > On 3 August 2016 at 17:01, Keith W wrote: >> In response to infra@a.o's initiative to consolidate the JDK versions >> available on the Apache Jenkins CI slaves, I have updated all Qpid >> jobs that were using JDK labels that have been marked as depreca

Re: Exaggerated Score for CVE-2016-4974

+1 to the suggested draft to MITRE. On 3 August 2016 at 16:59, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > I noticed the MITRE page doesnt have a score, I just meant that > including that detail could serve as a means of elaborating on why the > change is being suggested and should be made. > > On 3 August 2016 at 1

Qpid's CI jobs - Jenkins JDK Matrix consolidation

In response to infra@a.o's initiative to consolidate the JDK versions available on the Apache Jenkins CI slaves, I have updated all Qpid jobs that were using JDK labels that have been marked as deprecated to the equivalents that are not. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/JDK+Instal

Re: [NOTICE] cease commits to cpp and python subdirs of svn trunk, migrating to git

On 30 June 2016 at 10:45, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > The repositories that exist were created several days ago for testing > purposes, as the migration is unusual given the structure of the svn > repo. The actual migration has not actually been performed yet (I'm > guessing due to the JIRA issues), I

Re: svn commit: r1750907 - in /qpid/java/tags: 6.0.4/ qpid-java-build-6.0.4/

Thanks Robbie, I wasn't aware that Maven could be overridden in that way. That is useful. On 1 July 2016 at 12:17, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > You can configure the release plugin to use the version number alone > for the tag so that you dont have to remember to override its default > artifactId-ve

CPP broker compile failure since rev 1749782 (QPID-7306)

Hi Jenkins CI is seeing the following compile failure: In file included from /home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/Qpid-Java-Cpp-Test/qpid/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/TopicExchange.h:30:0, from /home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/Qpid-Java-Cpp-Test/qpid/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/acl/AclTo

Re: [jira] [Commented] (QPID-7274) [Java Client] Asynchronous client acknowledgements

Hi Jakub I think the proposal to make the sync optional after a message acknowledgement on a {{Session.CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE}} session looks reasonable. I notice the the 0-8 code path already supports a system property {{qpid.sync_after_client.ack}} (which default to true) which is used to control wh

[CVE-2016-4432] Apache Qpid Java Broker - authentication bypass

[CVE-2016-4432] Apache Qpid Java Broker - authentication bypass Severity: Important Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: Qpid Java Broker versions 6.0.2 and earlier Description: The code responsible for handling incoming AMQP 0-8, 0-9, 0-91, and 0-10 connections contains a

Python messaging test suite (qpid.tests.messaging) - running against the swigged CPP client

Hi all, It is possible to run the Python messaging test suite (qpid.tests.messaging) against the swigged CPP client? I have looked at the code, and I think the answer is currently no. I see one test script (qpid/tests/messaging/message.py) that can use either the pure python implementation or sw

Re: qpid_tests/broker_1_0 not in tests/setup.py

> > Yes, in so far as they require a different client. However, personally I > have no objection to adding the 1.0 tests as well. I'm not sure whether a > conscious decision was ever made about whether or not to include them. > > I made this change under QPID-7173, which changes test code only, an

Re: qpid_tests/broker_1_0 not in tests/setup.py

On 29 March 2016 at 09:13, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 28/03/16 08:57, Keith W wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am trying to automate the running of the existing Python AMQP 1.0 >> broker tests against the Java Broker with the proton-c/cpp binary >> dependencies buil

qpid_tests/broker_1_0 not in tests/setup.py

Hi all, I am trying to automate the running of the existing Python AMQP 1.0 broker tests against the Java Broker with the proton-c/cpp binary dependencies built from their respective trunks. I am installing the Python modules to a private site-package directory, but I notice the tests/setup.py do

Re: testReservedExchangeRedeclaredSameType

On 22 June 2015 at 19:16, Gordon Sim wrote: > A couple of new tests were added in http://svn.apache.org/r1686284. One > of these, testReservedExchangeRedeclaredSameType, verifies that amq.direct > can be redeclared using the correct type with passive set to false as well > as to true. > > I belie

Re: Trunk re-organisation

On 30 March 2015 at 17:58, Keith W wrote: > > > Its possibly worth [someone other than me, since I'm meant to be on >> vacation just now :P] discussing with infra before we proceed with svn >> changes, to find out what they think in case it should impact any >> s

Re: Trunk re-organisation

Its possibly worth [someone other than me, since I'm meant to be on > vacation just now :P] discussing with infra before we proceed with svn > changes, to find out what they think in case it should impact any > subsequent migrations to Git that were to be made. > I have pinged just such a mail ont

Re: Trunk re-organisation

On 18 March 2015 at 21:51, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 03/18/2015 08:58 PM, Keith W wrote: > >> I've updated the proposal page to split out tools by itself. Just to >> clarify the top level names: Robbie is correct, the names won't have the >> qpid- prefix whilst

Re: Trunk re-organisation

On 17 March 2015 at 21:18, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 03/17/2015 06:56 PM, Fraser Adams wrote: > >> On 17/03/15 10:22, Gordon Sim wrote: >> >>> On 03/16/2015 06:12 PM, Keith W wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I believe

Trunk re-organisation

Hello all, I believe we reached agreement on the following thread [1] that we would reorganise trunk (to support independent component releases) once the 0.32 was branched. Justin previously published a source tree layout proposal. I have just extended it to include the Java subtree too. https:

Re: Request for inclusion into 0.32

Hi Justin On 24 February 2015 at 12:31, Justin Ross wrote: > The latter three are approved. > > On the first, QPID-6247. You say "only affects a part of Broker > functionality responsible for writing updates to configuration files". > This is the primary way users will store their configurati

QPID-6405 - Python client does not report version to peer

Hi all, May I ask someone with more Python expertise than myself review the change I made on QPID-6405? The change simply exposes the client's version number through to the Broker during connection through the connection properties in the same manner as the existing Java client (0-10/0-9). (The

Re: Problem building sslconnector.so for qpid c++ client

On 17 November 2014 09:09, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 11/16/2014 10:00 AM, Keith W wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I want to test an SSL connection from the C++ client to the Java Broker >> but >> I am unable to create the SSL connector for the C++ client. I am

Problem building sslconnector.so for qpid c++ client

Hi all, I want to test an SSL connection from the C++ client to the Java Broker but I am unable to create the SSL connector for the C++ client. I am working from source and following instructions from cpp/INSTALL. Env: Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug) Trunk All dependencies yum installed (including

FOP/docbook CPP book generation fails - org.apache.fop.apps.FOPException: org.apache.fop.fo.ValidationException: Property ID "ha-broker-options" ID values must be unique within a document!

Hello Alan I think your commit on trunk (r1618160, Aug 15) has introduced a problem with the fop step in the CPP docbook generation on trunk. It looks to be a case of a duplicate id in the docbook source chocking fop. I am running the following in /site make gen-release RELEASE=trunk and it

Open Jiras against java-client component

Hi all, Rob and I spent some hours last week going through the backlog of Jiras assigned against components java client, java common, and java broker on a late spring clean exercise. You'll have no doubt been deluged by JIRA update mails over the weekend, sorry about that. Many jiras that were i

QPID-5618: Improve site links to JMS client documentation

I propose to make some changes to the qpid.apache.org site to improve the linkage to our JMS documentation and examples. Specifically, the two areas I wish to address are: 1) Make the JMS client examples for the Qpid JMS AMQP 1-0 (prototype) client easier to find. I think the current site runs t

Re: What is the intended process to publish trunk docbooks to the Qpid website?

e NO-JIRA: Publish trunk books On 3 March 2014 14:28, Justin Ross wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Keith W wrote: >> Hi Justin >> >> I haven't heard anything from builds@a.o re, INFRA-7243, so I sent a chaser. >> >> Separately, I raised QPID-5593 t

Re: What is the intended process to publish trunk docbooks to the Qpid website?

establish redirects from these URLs to the new location. Does anyone know if Apache allow its projects to have mod_rewrite rules? I'm happy to write the rules if someone can tell me the process I need to use to have these applied to the httpd.conf. Kind regards, Keith. On 27 January 2014

Request for 0.26

Hi Justin Can I request an addition to 0.26 for inclusion in the next RC? https://svn.apache.org/r1562452 It is QPID-5211 - there was a second aspect to this defect affecting the Java broker's memory message store and quota message store. The former is used mainly for testing, the latter is use

Re: What is the intended process to publish trunk docbooks to the Qpid website?

utput can be manually reviewed. cheers, Keith. On 23 January 2014 11:02, Justin Ross wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Justin Ross wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Keith W wrote: >>> I have a couple of remaining questions: >>> >>> 1. For buil

Re: 0.26 release update - RC3 is available

Hi Justin I've performed basic testing on the Java Broker/Java Client (0-8..0-10) builds from RC3. No issues encountered. * Started/stopped the Java Broker, tested functionality exposed the Web Management Console * Sent/received messages using Drain/Spout. Kind regards, Keith. On 16 January 20

Re: What is the intended process to publish trunk docbooks to the Qpid website?

older releases. I don't yet understand the mechanics of how the buildbot performs the svn commit (which user is used to perform the commit etc). I'll find out. Thanks in advance, Keith. On 7 January 2014 22:46, Justin Ross wrote: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Keit

What is the intended process to publish trunk docbooks to the Qpid website?

Hi Justin, I'd like to utilise http://ci.apache.org/buildbot.html to automatically publish trunk docbooks (with the new styling) to the Qpid website. I've been taking a look around at site, and it is not clear to me how the website rendering system is supposed to work for trunk documentation. I

Re: Way to bind qpid to a different IP?

Hello Kyle, Yes, this is supported. You can make the AMQP port bind to a particular interface using the binding address attribute. Use the Web Management Console to edit the AMQP port and specify a binding address (127.1.244.129 in your case). Once done, restart the Broker for that change to

Java Broker - adding support for multi-node HA clusters

We wish to let you know we are currently extending the high availability features provided by the Java Broker. Qpid Release 0.18 added simplistic support for Java Broker clusters formed of two nodes together with a basic JMX management layer allowing the cluster to be controlled. This piece of wo

Request for inclusion in 026 - QPID-5282

Can I request QPID-5282 for inclusion in 0.26? It is a defect fix for the Java Common IO Transport stack (shared by Broker and Client). https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5282 https://svn.apache.org/r1543721 Kind regards, Keith.

0.24 request - QPID-5036

Hello Justin Can I request approval for the inclusion of QPID-5036? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5036 https://svn.apache.org/r1510429 It is a small fix for a defect that causes incorrect information to be displayed within the view message dialogue of the Java Broker's web managemen

Re: [VOTE] Replace the Qpid website

[ X ] Yes, replace the existing site with the proposed site On 18 June 2013 13:41, Chuck Rolke wrote: > [ X ] Yes, replace the existing site with the proposed site > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.22 RC6 as 0.22 final

+1 On 26 May 2013 11:35, Justin Ross wrote: > RC6 contains the proposed final bits for Qpid 0.22. > > If you favor making the RC6 bits into our official release, vote +1. > If you have reason to believe RC6 is not ready for release, vote -1. > > Thanks! > Justin > >

Re: [VOTE] Create a QPIDJMS JIRA project

Yes [X] No [ ] On 28 May 2013 16:23, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > Yes [X] > No [ ] > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Robbie Gemmell > wrote: > > > Following recent discussions regarding a more component-focused > structure, > > and beginning work on a Proton-based AMQP 1.0 JMS client, coul

Re: unable to start tomcat while qpid is running

On 8 February 2013 15:44, lhoffman wrote: > > So I have looked and looked...How do I tell Qpid to not listen on port 8080? > I don't see that in any config file. > > Thanks > L Lisa, You need to look at the management/http element within the config.xml. To stop the Java Broker binding port 808

Re: Preserving the original JMS Message ID when a message is sent across multiple vendors using a bridge.

Hi Rajith, I'm interested to know more background. When exactly is the ability to preserve JMSMessageIDs in this way useful? Does this change give us compatibility with particular (bridging) product(s)? If so, which ones? Thanks, Keith.

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.20

+1 I retested the Java Broker and Java Client using Drain/Spout and HTTP Management. I also retested the fix for the transaction timeout defect [QPID-4503] included in RC4. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.o

Re: 0.20 release update - RC3 is out, C++ and proton problem

On 8 January 2013 18:19, Justin Ross wrote: > Thanks for helping to settle my qualms. Approved for 0.20. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**view=revision&revision=1421884 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**view=revision&revision=1424427 Thanks Justin. Those changes are now merged to 0.20 and h

Re: 0.20 release update - RC3 is out, C++ and proton problem

Hi Justin, Can I request the inclusion of QPID-4503 in 0.20? It is a small changs in a narrow area of code to address a race condition in a feature to detect producer transaction timeouts. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1421884 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revi

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.18

+1

Re: 0.18 release update - proposed final RC3

Hi Justin, I've tested the following from RC3. Java Broker/Java Client and JMX Management Console/Web Management Console (using Safari) on Mac OS X. No issues encountered. cheers, Keith.

Re: Qpid-Java-Cpp-Test failing (timing out) for last 5 days

>> Did you guys receive any emails indicating the failures ? >> For some reason I didn't. Maybe I accidentally deleted them. > The job was timing out, rather than failing. I'll check the Jenkins options and see how these are handled. I've ticked the "fail the build" on timeout option on all our J

Qpid-Java-Cpp-Test failing (timing out) for last 5 days

Hi all I notice that the Java Client/CPP Broker job on Jenkins began to fail (timeout) 5 days ago and has timed out in the same place (AddressBasedDestinationTest) on every build since . Normally the job completes successfully. The commit that triggered the build suggests that this was caused b

Re: Regarding Java Client Issue with AMQP broker

Hello Keertiraj The Qpid Java Client does not automatically reconnect to the Broker unless the feature is configured within the connection url. See the JMS connection section of the Programming in Apache Qpi docbook: http://qpid.apache.org/books/0.16/Programming-In-Apache-Qpid/html/QpidJNDI.htm

Re: 0.18 release update - RC1 is available

On 22 July 2012 00:53, Justin wrote: > Hi, folks. RC1 is ready at revision 1363863 of our product branch. > Get it here: > > > http://people.apache.org/~**jross/qpid-0.18-rc1/ > > There were many changes between beta and RC1: > > QPID-4118: HA

0.18 inclusion request

Hello Justin Can the following two Jiras be considered for inclusion in 0.18? QPID-4121 ConcurrentModificationException reported by HouseKeepingTask while closing session (rev 1359595) QPID-4131 Broker should close connection on transaction timeout rather than close session for better compatibili

Python/Cpp tests failing on Apache CI (QPID-4075)

Hello I noticed this morning that the new python tests added by QPID-4075 failed on the Python/Cpp job on Apache CI. https://builds.apache.org//view/M-R/view/Qpid/job/Qpid-Python-Cpp-Test/ I see that the tests had passed a couple of times since the original commit, which may suggest a reliablity

Apache CI Python against CPP (Qpid-Python-Cpp-Test) tests failing for the last few days

Hello The Qpid-Python-Cpp-Test started to fail on May 21st. Many tests are failing and others are begin skipped. I turned on DEBUG logging from the Python tests, and logging from the CPP Broker, but it is no obvious to me what has gone wrong.The Python/Java tests continue to pass. Totals:

Re: Understanding org.apache.qpid.transport.Connection

On 20 April 2012 11:55, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Thank you very much for the information Keith. Do you think I can provide > a patch to restore the ability to open a connection without specifying > explicitely the delegate? Is there a chance that it will be accepted? > > Yes, we'd certainly consid

Re: Understanding org.apache.qpid.transport.Connection

Hi Emmanuel You are correct, this was changed by QPID-3415. This change was made to allow the 0-10 code path (when utilised by the Qpid client) to load SASL callback handers using the same mechanism as 0-8..0-9-1. You are also correct, yours was not an anticipated/tested use-case. If you don't

Build failures

Hello We saw another commit to SVN last night break the Java tests. This is disruptive to us all. This can easily be avoided in most cases by running appropiate test profiles before each commit, and glancing at CI or the notification emails after in order to be certain all remains well. We thi

Qpid CI on Apache Jenkins changes (new release branch building and new jobs for IBM-JDK1.6/Sun-JDK1.7)

Hello all, To let you know about some changes we've made to Qpid CI on Apache Jenkins. 1) Testing of Qpid under IBM-JDK 1.6 and Sun JDK 1.7 We have two new jobs testing the Java client/Java Broker under IBM JDK 1.6 and Sun JDK 1.7. We have been testing these builds for the last month and they

Java Broker: Unified configuration, management overhaul

We are beginning a major piece of work to change the configuration and management mechanism that underlies the Java Broker. Why? It currently has a mixed model for storage of configuration: some configuration items are held in XML files, some are held in store, and some can be held in both. There

Re: [jira] [Commented] (QPID-3824) Additional queue statistics, posix memory statistics, and broker-scope statistics

Hi Ted > It looks like this test runs out of the svn tree (as opposed to installed). Jenkins uses an Ant wrapper python/qpid-python-test-ant.xml around qpid-python-test. It does run the tests straight from the svn as opposed to the installed. I set this up, and didn't realise there was another

Re: 0.14 release update - proposed final RC is out

Hi Justin I've run some tests against the second 0-14 RC and encountered no problems. Details of tests run: used Drain/Spout to publish/receive messages to/from Java Broker whilst monitoring in the Management Console. Exercised the same tests using both 0-10 and 0-9-1 protocols. No issues fo

ACLV2 : permissioning the default exchange

Hi all Some work here on QPID-3641 has provoked a discussion about the correct way to write ACLV2 rules to permission the default exchange. The ACLV2 documentatuion seems to say nothing on the subject. As the default exchange is internal to the Broker, effectively acting as a global registry for

Qpid CI on Apache Jenkins

Hi, I just wanted to take this opportunity to point out some work that has been going on to integrate some of Qpid's builds onto the Apache Jenkins instances over the last few months. We now have the Java client being tested against the C++/Java Broker on each commit and the Python tests being r

Requests for inclusion in 0.14

Hello Justin Can the following JIRAs be considered for inclusion in 0.14 please? QPID-3617 - AMQQueueMBean.viewMessages: Viewing message without priority set ends with NullPointerException This is a very minor changes that would affect users of the Python client with the Java Broker. It prevents

Problems building trunk cpp broker since this morning - `src/qmf2.pc.in' not found

Hi I'm running into problems building cpp on trunk this morning. The configure step is failing. Is there a new dependency or some extra commands I need to run? I'm on RHEL 5.3 but I notice the same failiure occuring on the Jenkins ubuntu slaves. cd qpid/cpp ./bootstrap; ./configure cheers Kei

Re: [jira] [Assigned] (QPID-3519) Refactor the logic behind sending of the selector arguments during subscription creation

Hi Justin It is intended for trunk, sorry for the confusion. I've just updated the Jira to show 0-15. cheers Keith. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-su

Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (QPID-3536) Topic Session Rollback/Recover does not work when using ADDR address destinations

Hello Rajith Did you have chance to review Andew's proposed patch for this defect? Kind regards, Keith. -- Forwarded message -- From: Andrew MacBean (Commented) (JIRA) Date: 11 October 2011 10:59 Subject: [jira] [Commented] (QPID-3536) Topic Session Rollback/Recover does not wo

Re: 0.14 release update - alpha is available

ook and response via the Jira. > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Keith W wrote: > >> Hi Justin, >> >> Re: the ConnectionCloseTest#testSendReceiveClose test failure. >> >> That's seems quite odd.    We've been paying a lot of attention to >> test sui

Re: 0.14 release update - alpha is available

Hi I tested the Java Broker/Java Client and Qpid Management Console on Mac OS X/Java 1.6.0_26 by running tests with Drain/Spout from the examples jar. No issues encountered. cheers, Keith. On 24 October 2011 19:21, Chuck Rolke wrote: > It's covered in r1188271. -C > > - Original Message -

Re: 0.14 release update - alpha is available

Hi Justin, Re: the ConnectionCloseTest#testSendReceiveClose test failure. That's seems quite odd.We've been paying a lot of attention to test suite and test suite automation recently, and AFAIK that is not a test that we are seeing fail locally or on Apache Jenkins. Would you mind raising a