Re: Recommended GC algorithm for Java broker

2017-02-09 Thread Rob Godfrey
To be honest, we've not done anything in depth recently. Last time I tried with GC1 (which is probably about 18 months ago now), I found it to be a bit slower than the CMS we use in the startup scripts... however the performance of different collectors is probably use case dependent... and it's al

Recommended GC algorithm for Java broker

2017-02-09 Thread Ramayan Tiwari
Hi All, Has anyone done any perf testing around using different GC algorithms with the Java broker or is there any recommendation on that? Thanks Ramayan

[Python] python-qpid-proton 0.17.0 packages

2017-02-09 Thread Ken Giusti
FYI: I've posted the latest python packages up @ PyPi: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-qpid-proton enjoy! -- -K - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.

Re: Qpid tools with python vs qpid-cpp messaging

2017-02-09 Thread Gordon Sim
On 09/02/17 15:20, Gordon Sim wrote: It seems that the swigged c++ implementation is now prefered to the pure python on. Not sure why that was done; I hadn't even realised it had been done. This was done as the fix for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7432, i.e. in order to allow ma

Re: Qpid tools with python vs qpid-cpp messaging

2017-02-09 Thread Gordon Sim
On 09/02/17 14:37, Chris Richardson wrote: Hi, Since the integration of the qpid-tools with the main qpid-cpp project in version 1.35 we've had a problem where in some environments the tools (tested: qpid-stat, qpid-config) now require the c++ client url format of : rather than the python format

Qpid tools with python vs qpid-cpp messaging

2017-02-09 Thread Chris Richardson
Hi, Since the integration of the qpid-tools with the main qpid-cpp project in version 1.35 we've had a problem where in some environments the tools (tested: qpid-stat, qpid-config) now require the c++ client url format of : rather than the python format of amqp[s]://:, resulting in errors such as:

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop the AMQP 0-x client from the Qpid for Java 7.0 release

2017-02-09 Thread Robbie Gemmell
On 9 February 2017 at 13:18, Keith W wrote: > Thanks but I'm aware that there is still outstanding work.LICENSE > files will be updated and qpid-jms-amqp-0-x-test-utils will almost > certainly disappear. Separating the two actually proved more painful > than I anticipated and as a result I ne

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop the AMQP 0-x client from the Qpid for Java 7.0 release

2017-02-09 Thread Keith W
Thanks but I'm aware that there is still outstanding work.LICENSE files will be updated and qpid-jms-amqp-0-x-test-utils will almost certainly disappear. Separating the two actually proved more painful than I anticipated and as a result I needed a staging post. I would also like to move both

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop the AMQP 0-x client from the Qpid for Java 7.0 release

2017-02-09 Thread Rob Godfrey
+1 on move the new (client) repo to git. I can't see any compelling reason to create a git mirror of this new svn location - we should just be targeting moving all the components onto git this year. -- Rob On 9 February 2017 at 12:38, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > The LICENCE and NOTICE files in the

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop the AMQP 0-x client from the Qpid for Java 7.0 release

2017-02-09 Thread Robbie Gemmell
The LICENCE and NOTICE files in the new repo will need updating. I also wondered if the qpid-jms-amqp-0-x-test-utils utils module could just be factored out? It doesnt seem like its going to be adding significant value in the new repo to warrant the new module. I also wondered about the plan for c