Re: [VOTE] merge the proton mailing list into the users/dev lists

+1 On 30/03/16 13:30, "Rob Godfrey" wrote: >+1 > >Additionally it might make sense to write a paragraph somewhere on >suggestions for best practice on mailing the list (like including >components / languages in use in the title or the body of the e-mail :-) ). > >--

Re: Problem with Proton-j 0.9.1

an attach frame if attach has been called. Thoughts? Best Regards, Alex Kritikos Software AG From: Kritikos, Alex alex.kriti...@softwareag.commailto:alex.kriti...@softwareag.com Subject: Problem with Proton-j 0.9.1 Date: 23 Ιουλίου 2015 - 8:00:51 μ.μ. EEST To: proton@qpid.apache.orgmailto:proton

0.9.1 release

Hello all, when i try to download Proton 0.9.1 from https://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-proton-0.9.1/index.html the archive i download seems to contain 0.9.1 RC1 instead of the final version. This seems to happen from multiple mirrors. Is it just the wrong directory name or is this the

How to re-attach a detached link in Proton-J

Hello, I have a qpid JMS (0.20) durable subscriber that i call close() on causing a detach frame to be sent. If i try to open a new durable subscriber using the same name from the same connection the client sends an attach frame again but calling open on the link on the server side produces no

Proton-J engine and thread safety

Hi all, is the proton-j engine meant to be thread safe? We have been experiencing some sporadic issues where under load, the engine sends callbacks to registered handlers with null as the event. We do not have a standalone repro case yet but just wondered what other people’s experience is as

[Resending] - Proton-J engine and thread safety

[Resending as it ended up in the wrong thread] Hi all, is the proton-j engine meant to be thread safe? We have been experiencing some sporadic issues where under load, the engine sends callbacks to registered handlers with null as the event. We do not have a standalone repro case yet but just

Re: [Resending] - Proton-J engine and thread safety

, aconway acon...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 09:34 +, Kritikos, Alex wrote: [Resending as it ended up in the wrong thread] Hi all, is the proton-j engine meant to be thread safe? The C engine is definitely NOT meant to be thread safe. Unless you have found an explicit written

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE]: Proton 0.9-rc-3

Rafael, could you or someone else point me to a change list from 0.8? Thanks, Alex On 26 Mar 2015, at 22:20, Ted Ross tr...@redhat.com wrote: Rafael, Do you have an ETA for the final bits? We're anxious to build some downstream packages. -Ted On 03/22/2015 02:44 PM, Rafael Schloming