Commit it on a branch.
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
Hiram Chirino wrote:
The change is too big for a patch. I'd rather commit on a branch.
Another option is to refactor it some more so that it becomes part of
the new
, 2003 12:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing
from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing
from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation
, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
The change is too big for a patch. I'd rather commit on a branch.
Another option is to refactor it some more so that it becomes part of
the new module that Nathan is working on. Either way, please let me
know which way you prefer it. I have completed most
The current JMS rewrite by Nathan, Adrian, and Bela is going quite well
and we will be replacing the old system in the fall. Don't work on a
codebase that is going to be retired and needs to live in depracated
mode for awhile. A refactoring isn't what is needed in the JMS
subsystem.
I don't want
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 23:41, Nathan Phelps wrote
As you may know, we are going in a different direction with
JMS than
the original architecture coded by Norbert Lataille. We
are doing a
rewrite
I guess I had it good. Norbert made a good start. At least
basic pub/sub worked. That's better than starting from scratch.
Enough
Hi guys,
Over the past two weeks I have started to make a few improvements the
current JBossMQ implementation that is in CVS HEAD. I would consider a
large porting of what I did refactoring to simplify the current code
base to allow future growth without having to sacrifice current features
or
And what interaction has there been with Nathan who originally responded to
the rewrite query?
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi guys,
Over the past two weeks I have started to make a few
, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Hi guys,
Over the past two weeks I have started to make a few improvements the
current JBossMQ implementation that is in CVS HEAD. I would consider
a
large porting of what I did refactoring to simplify the current code
base to allow future growth without
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation to 'appear' and it has not.
So it's time for me to start the engine again and make some needed
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram Chirino
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Hi guys,
Over the past two weeks I have started to make a few improvements the
current JBossMQ implementation
. juin 2003 21:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
As Bela and I have recently discussed with Tom Elrod, we all
think that
exposing JavaGroups as a transport of the remoting framework
is indeed the best
approach. However, I struggle with how
]
Kopie:
Thema:RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
JBossMQthe current code basewill continue to ship with JBoss 3.2 which is,
and will remain for some time, the production version. Therefore, making
changes to the current code base IS NOT worthless. However, I am working on
a brand new
Hi Ulf,
(2) message redelivery / message throttling clustering / failover
since Nathan's design is based on JavaGroups, these issues are
JavaGroups issues:
- Message retransmission is handled by JavaGroups.
- Failover: what do you understand by failover ?
- Throttling: we are working on a
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
15.06.2003 00:00
Bitte antworten an jboss-development
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopie:
Thema: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
JBossMQ?the current code base?will continue to ship with JBoss 3.2 which
is,
and will remain for some time
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nathan Phelps
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 6:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
JBossMQthe current code basewill continue to ship with
JBoss 3.2 which is, and will remain for some time, the
production version. Therefore, making
from getting a first iteration
in place.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bela
Ban
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 1:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Hi Ulf,
(2) message redelivery
Bill Burke wrote:
Nathan's design will not be based on JavaGroups, but will rather use
JavaGroups as one type of transport mechanism.
Don't get all nervous; that's what I meant. 2 transports, one is the
traditional c/s, the other one is implemented using JavaGroups.
I would rather see JBoss
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bela
Ban
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 2:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Bill Burke wrote:
Nathan's design will not be based on JavaGroups, but will rather use
JavaGroups as one type
1:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Hi Ulf,
(2) message redelivery / message throttling clustering / failover
since Nathan's design is based on JavaGroups, these issues are
JavaGroups issues:
- Message retransmission
Can anyone give me some informations about the current state of the announced rewrite of JBossMQ for JBoss 4 ? Does it still make sense to implement needed features on the current JBossMQ implementation ? I don't want to spend time on something that gets nuked in short time :-)
Regards
Ulf
over multicast.
Thanks,
Nathan Phelps
JMS/JBoss (Reloaded) Project Lead
JBoss Group, L.L.C.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
24 matches
Mail list logo
