Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.1.5 (RC1)

+1 * verified all checksums * ran apache-rat:check on source bundle * compiled source and ran tests with the java-mms.0-9-1 profile * build docs and viewed some pages * run binary (tar.gz) broker and ** put BDB JE 7.4.5 on the class path and create a JSON/BDB VirtualHost(Node) ** checked the web

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x 6.3.0

+1 My testing: * check all checksums on source and binary bundles * run apache-rat:check * build and run all tests of the source bundle * run Spout/Drain example against Qpid Broker-J (git master) On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: > Hi all, > > I

Re: Welcome Chris Richardson as an Apache Qpid committer

Welcome Chris, Good to have you on the team! On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Adel Boutros wrote: > Welcome Chris!! > > From: Chris Richardson > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:20:43 PM > To: users > Subject: Re:

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Broker-J 7.0.0 (RC3)

+1 My testing: 1) Verify md5/sha checksums on tar.gz source and binarys 2) run test profile dby.0-9-1 3) shared durable subscriptions with the JMS client over TLS 4) start embedded broker using the staging repo and publish and receive msg (using JMS client)  5) some tyre kicking in the Web

Re: Accumulation of Links from global shared durable subscriptions (JMS 2.0)

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 10:43 +, Rob Godfrey wrote: > On 7 November 2017 at 10:26, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 09:51 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Lorenz, > > >

Re: Accumulation of Links from global shared durable subscriptions (JMS 2.0)

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 10:14 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 3 November 2017 at 16:58, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 1 November 2017 at 10:16, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > >

Re: [Qpid JMS client] Characters ',' and '=' in password

, Lorenz Quack wrote: > Hi, > > I think this is a broker issue. > At least for the SCRAM authentication provider. > Vavricka, could you confirm that you are using a SCRAM authentication > provider on the broker? > > In SCRAM "=" and "," are specially en

Re: [Qpid JMS client] Characters ',' and '=' in password

Hi, I think this is a broker issue. At least for the SCRAM authentication provider. Vavricka, could you confirm that you are using a SCRAM authentication provider on the broker? In SCRAM "=" and "," are specially encoded in usernames and passwords. It looks like the broker is doing this

Re: Welcome Adel Boutros as an Apache Qpid committer

Welcome Adel! Looking forward to your continued contributions! On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 11:49 +0100, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > The Qpid PMC have voted to grant commit rights to Adel Boutros in > recognition of continued contributions to the project. > > Welcome, Adel! > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS 0.24.0

Hi, tests performed:  * verify checksums and signatures  * mvn apache-rat:check  * build from source  * run tests from source (mvn verify)    1 test failure.    -> Robbies analysis indicates no client issue  * run tests of bin release examples  * run HelloWorld from bin release against

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS 0.24.0

Hi Robbie, I just started testing the Qpid JMS 0.24.0 RC. While compiling the src bundle and running the tests I got a test failure. In the root project folder I ran:      mvn verify  The test in question is: Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 31.944 sec <<<

Re: QPID-7867 [Java Broker] Authentication using self-signed expired certificates

Hi all, tl;dr = I think overall if it would come to a vote right now I would vote like this: a) -1 b.1) -1 b.2) +0 c) +1 reasoning follows inline: On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 15:13 +0100, Keith W wrote: > If we were to add a feature to help the use-case, we'd need to decide > on the scope. > >

Re: PyPi packages: qpid-tools and qpid-python (both are now 1.36.0-1)

Thanks, Irina. On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 16:21 -0400, Irina Boverman wrote: > Updated to include missing .bat files. > -- > Regards, Irina. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Queue Reject Policy Behaviour

a specific characteristics such as importance >   * Impacted Message details to include: > ** sender information > ** timestamp when message was originally received > ** message characteristic used in determination action > Just an idea. > > Paul > > From:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Queue Reject Policy Behaviour

-7815 to reference this discussion. Kind regards, Lorenz On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 10:21 +0100, Lorenz Quack wrote: > Hello all, > > QPID-7815 [1] proposes the addition of a Queue Overflow Reject Policy > to the Qpid broker-j (aka Qpid Broker for Java) component. > > Queue's allow

Re: [DISCUSSION] Queue Reject Policy Behaviour

> have been dropped if needed. To Adel's point, the operator would need > > to do pretty much the same the broker itself would; by making some > > aribtrary decision such as the first or last messages on the > > queue. > > > > Robbie > > > > On 13 June

Re: [DISCUSSION] Queue Reject Policy Behaviour

gt; B) He would explicitly choose to ignore current overflowing messages > > C) He would explicitly define a period after which current overflowing > messages would be deleted (A would be a specific implementation of C) > > > Regards, > > Adel > > ___

[DISCUSSION] Queue Reject Policy Behaviour

Hello all, QPID-7815 [1] proposes the addition of a Queue Overflow Reject Policy to the Qpid broker-j (aka Qpid Broker for Java) component. Queue's allow to define overflow limits (in term of number of messages and/or cumulative size of the messages).  If the limit is breached the overflow

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Qpid for Java 6.1.3 released

The Apache Qpid (https://qpid.apache.org) community is pleased to announce the immediate availability of Apache Qpid for Java 6.1.3. This release incorporates a number of defect fixes and enhancements in Qpid Broker for Java and the JMS AMQP 0-x Client. The release is available now from our

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Qpid for Java 6.0.7 released

The Apache Qpid (https://qpid.apache.org) community is pleased to announce the immediate availability of Apache Qpid for Java 6.0.7. This release incorporates a number of defect fixes and enhancements in Qpid Broker for Java and the JMS AMQP 0-x Client. The release is available now from our

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.7

There were 4 binding +1 votes, with no other votes received. The vote has passed. The voting thread can be found at: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Qpid-Java-6-0-7-RC1-tp7663488.html I will add the archives to the dist release repo and release the maven staging repo shortly. I

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.1.3

There were 5 binding +1 votes, with no other votes received. The vote has passed. The voting thread can be found at: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Qpid-Java-6-1-3-RC1-tp7663508.html I will add the archives to the dist release repo and release the maven staging repo shortly. I

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.7 (RC1)

+1 * checked checksums * compiled & ran the Spout and Drain examples against the binary broker On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 17:39 +0100, Keith W wrote: > Hi all, > > A release candidate for the next release (6.0.7) of the Qpid Java > Components has been created. > > The list of defect fixes can be

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.1.3 (RC1)

making my +1 explicit On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 16:39 +0100, Lorenz Quack wrote: > Hi all, > > As Rob pointed out my previous mail contained an error. > This email thread is (as the subject suggests) a voting thread for  > the release candidate for the 6.1.3 release and not fo

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.1.3 (RC1)

/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1108   On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 13:49 +0100, Rob Godfrey wrote: > The title and links say 6.1.3 but the body of the e-mail says 6.0.7 ... You > might want to resend and make clear :-) > > -- Rob > > On 26 May 2017 1:44 pm, "Lorenz Quack&q

[VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.1.3 (RC1)

Hi all, A release candidate for the next release (6.0.7) of the Qpid Java Components has been created. The list of defect fixes can be found in Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20QPID%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20qpid-java-6.1.3 Please test and vote accordingly.

Re: Java broker OOM due to DirectMemory

t; level description of the approach will be very helpful for us in order to > brainstorm our use cases along with this solution. > > - Ramayan > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello Ramayan, > > >

Re: Java broker OOM due to DirectMemory

Hello Ramayan, We are still working on a fix for this issue. In the mean time we had an idea to potentially workaround the issue until a proper fix is released. The idea is to decrease the qpid network buffer size the broker uses. While this still allows for sparsely populated buffers it would

svn to git migration of java components complete!

://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x Thanks to everyone involved. Kind regards, Lorenz On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 16:10 +0100, Lorenz Quack wrote: > A brief update. > The migration is progressing nicely. > We resolved the issue with the client history. It will be fully preser

Start of svn to git migration of java components

Hello All, We would like to notify all committers that we are starting the svn to git migration of the Qpid Broker-J and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x components as discussed in [1]. Please do not commit to [2] and/or [3] or any subfolders until further notice. Kind regards, Lorenz Quack [1] http://qpid

Re: Plan for migration of Qpid java broker svn repo into git

On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 09:49 +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote: > On 17 April 2017 at 17:41, Robbie Gemmell > wrote: > > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > On 14 April 2017 at 14:54, Oleksandr Rudyy > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > As per vote [1]

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Qpid Broker J and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client from SVN to GIT

+1 On 04/04/17 13:44, Keith W wrote: As already proposed and discussed in the following thread: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Migrate-Qpid-Broker-for-Java-and-Qpid-JMS-AMQP-0-x-Client-from-SVN-to-GIT-tt7661505.html#none In summary, the proposal is: Qpid Broker J: Current SVN

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client from SVN to GIT

On 03/04/17 14:53, Keith W wrote: On 31 March 2017 at 10:57, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com> wrote: On 30 March 2017 at 12:32, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: +1 on the migration to git. Regarding the name of the broker's git repo: * qpid-broker: I agree

Re: Logging ThreadId in Java broker logs

fferent thread but it will assume the same name. May I ask why you want to identify a thread beyond the task that it is performing? Kind regards, Lorenz On 03/04/17 09:18, Lorenz Quack wrote: Hi, I have not tried this before but a quick web search suggests [1, 2] you could achieve this b

Re: Logging ThreadId in Java broker logs

Hi, I have not tried this before but a quick web search suggests [1, 2] you could achieve this by means of a custom converter. Regarding Houskeeping threads sharing the same name, on trunk this should no longer be the case. If you encounter other thread pools with this behaviour please flag it

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client from SVN to GIT

+1 on the migration to git. Regarding the name of the broker's git repo: * qpid-broker: I agree with others that this might lead to confusions with the cpp broker. * qpid-java-broker: I am worried that legal will not be happy with this since Java is a trademark. See [1] and [2]. * This

Re: Corrupt artifacts on Qpid release web page

all artifacts listed. Regards, Adel ____ From: Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:08:44 AM To: users@qpid.apache.org Subject: Re: Corrupt artifacts on Qpid release web page Hello Adel, That is not the link to the actual fil

Re: Corrupt artifacts on Qpid release web page

chiver): I can extract qpid-java-6.1.1.tar.gz to qpid-java-6.1.1.tar I cannot extract qpid-java-6.1.1.tar (Archive is broker or damaged) Regards, Adel From: Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:13:59 AM To: users@qpid.apache

Re: Corrupt artifacts on Qpid release web page

Hi, I just tried the source bundle of the "Qpid for Java 6.1.1," release without issues. I used the command $ tar xfz qpid-java-6.1.1.tar.gz to unpack the source bundle. With which artefacts do you experience problems specifically? What tools are you using to extract the files? Windows,

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop 0-10 based JCA/RA artefacts from Qpid JMS 0-x Client.

Hi, I have never touched those components. I haven't even looked into them. Taking into account what Keith said about the code being pretty much dead already I am +1 for the removal in the next *minor* [1] release 6.3.0. Kind regards, Lorenz [1] http://semver.org/ On 19/03/17 22:54, Keith

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid for Java 6.1.2 (RC1)

ention the checksums once I test it. I think it should move in this release. Theres no need to respin for that, you can just generate them and add them to the dist repo. On 16 March 2017 at 10:04, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: +1 * verified checksums * build from source * Ran joram te

Re: deploying Qpid via Cloud Foundry

was wondering if somebody has already done some of it. Thanks again On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:35 AM Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Dan, I cannot comment too much on what you have to do on the CloudFoundry (CF) side of things but I might be able to give some advice from th

Re: deploying Qpid via Cloud Foundry

Hello Dan, I cannot comment too much on what you have to do on the CloudFoundry (CF) side of things but I might be able to give some advice from the Qpid Broker for Java side. For authentication, the broker supports OAuth2 [1] which is also supported by CF [2]. Qpid uses the implicit grant

Re: [Qpid java broker 7.0.0] When will it be released?

Hello Rabih, Unfortunately, the v7 release is still a couple of months away. Out of curiosity, what is your time-line for when you would like this feature to land? We were considering back porting this but there are currently no plans for a 6.2.0 release and as a new feature this is not

Re: flow control question

Hello Pat, What components are you using? C++ broker, Java Broker? Which client? You said "The broker had flow control thresholds set accordingly". Can you elaborate what exactly you did? Kind regards, Lorenz On 31/01/17 00:24, Demoss, Patrick wrote: I was surprised to see certain behavior

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

g a "This closes #" message somewhere in their log. The PR process for the ASF's GitHub mirrors works essentially the same for the svn based repos as it does for the Git based repos (asuming you are actually using git-svn, which I believe many/most folks are?). Robbie On 30 January 2

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

I think it is different for different components of Qpid. The Qpid broker for Java for example has not migrated its main repository to git. Also the GitHub mirror is treated as read-only. And it is quite possible that pull request might go unnoticed. So, for the Qpid broker for Java component

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.20.0

+1 * validated the checksums * built from source & ran tests * ran Hello World example against Qpid Broker for Java 6.1.1 On 16/01/17 18:38, Robbie Gemmell wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a spin for a 0.20.0 Qpid JMS client release, please test it and vote accordingly. The source and

Re: JMS 2.0 shared subs and clientId

On 12/01/17 16:07, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 12 January 2017 at 15:21, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, Robbie, Rob, Alex, and I had a discussion on IRC yesterday about the Qpid Broker for Java support for JMS 2.0 shared subscriptions. This is a follow-u

Re: JMS 2.0 shared subs and clientId

Hello, Robbie, Rob, Alex, and I had a discussion on IRC yesterday about the Qpid Broker for Java support for JMS 2.0 shared subscriptions. This is a follow-up from that discussion. We discussed that it would be helpful to have a document describing the broker behaviour purely in AMQP 1.0

Re: JMS 2.0 shared subs and clientId

. Robbie On 11 January 2017 at 10:21, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: Hello again, Alex just pointed out to me that I missed an important part of the JMS 2.0 spec. In chapter 8.3 it says: A shared non-durable subscription is identified by a name specified by the

Re: JMS 2.0 shared subs and clientId

ns without a ClientID can use. I think this was addressed by my second email and leads me to think that we are now in agreement. Kind regards, Lorenz On 11 January 2017 at 08:51, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, Sorry for the slightly lengthy email. tl;dr: I

Re: JMS 2.0 shared subs and clientId

conflict with anything Kind regards, Lorenz On 11/01/17 08:51, Lorenz Quack wrote: Hello, Sorry for the slightly lengthy email. tl;dr: I propose to change to the way JMS 2.0 subscriptions are treated in the face of the (non-)existence of a clientId as compared to what is outlined

JMS 2.0 shared subs and clientId

Hello, Sorry for the slightly lengthy email. tl;dr: I propose to change to the way JMS 2.0 subscriptions are treated in the face of the (non-)existence of a clientId as compared to what is outlined in QPIDJMS-220. Introduction: = I am working on adding support for

Re: [DISCUSS] Ending support for Java 7 in the Java broker and JMS clients

+1 The next Qpid Broker for Java is probably going to be 7.0 (i.e., a major release) so now is as good a time as any. Some dates for reference [1]: Java VersionFirst ReleaseEnd of Public Updates 7Jul 2011Apr 2015 8Mar 2014Sep 2017

Re: Qpid java broker 6.0.4 - JDBC message store performance issues

Hello Antoine, Yes, it is expected that a new Connection is made for each enqueue and dequeue. The relevant code is org.apache.qpid.server.store.AbstractJDBCMessageStore#getConnection which is called from multiple places. We do our performance testing using the BDB store. We do not

Re: [Qpid Java Broker - 6.0.4] Loss of message arrival time on broker restart

Hello Adel, I think persisting arrival time for AMQP 1.0 messages was only recently added (QPID-7575). The other protocols should already support it. If you observed this with protocol versions other than 1.0 I think this is a bug in which case I would ask you to raise a JIRA. Could you

Re: Qpid broker 6.0.4 performance issues

sent) when running with Memory store. I am wondering what does flow to disk does when we use Memory store? Since our average messages size is less than 1KB, I am really looking forward to some recommendation around the % allocation for DM vs Heap. Thanks Ramayan On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.6 (RC1)

+1 * checked all checksums * started broker created queue via web management console * ran Hello example On 20/12/16 12:27, Keith W wrote: Making my +1 explicit. My testing was: 1) Verified the md5/sha checksums on all distribution artefacts 2) Verified signatures on all all distribution

Re: Qpid broker 6.0.4 performance issues

Hello Ramayan, glad to hear that the patch is (mostly) working for you. To address your points: 1. If indeed in one case flow to disk is kicking in while in the other one it is not, then I am not surprised that there is a 5% difference. The question is whether the flow

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid for Java 6.1.1 (RC1)

+1 In addition to what Alex did I also: * checked the md5 and sha1 checksums * created a simple query in the WMC * created a simple dashboard in the WMC On 19/12/16 15:18, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: +1 I performed the following testing of Qpid for Java 6.1.1: * started the broker * using Web

Re: [Qpid Java Broker] Providing external encryptor for configuration

Hello Adel, you would set this like any other attribute. something like this: curl -u username localhost:8080/api/v6.1/broker -X POST -d '{"confidentialConfigurationEncryptionProvider":"AESKeyFile"}' However, we only allow valid values to be set. The error message from that curl command will

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Proton 0.16.0

+1 * checked sha1 checksums * ran the joram test suite against the Qpid Broker for Java One comment. The checksums do not contain the filenames so you cannot run "sha1sum -c file.sha1". IIRC, this is a shortcoming in the maven plugin. when doing Qpid for Java releases we have a script that

Re: [Qpid Java Broker 6.0.4] Java Cryptography Extension

. Is the above in contradiction with what is said here "the AMQP 1.0 Qpid JMS Client does currently not support message encryption"? Regards, Adel ____ From: Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:46:19 PM To: users@qpid.apache

Re: [Qpid Java Broker 6.0.4] Java Cryptography Extension

Hello Adel, As mentioned by Keith, the AMQP 1.0 Qpid JMS Client does currently not support message encryption. Or did I misunderstand your follow-up question? Furthermore, the Kerberos AuthenticationProvider also requires the full strength JCE. Kind regards, Lorenz On 06/12/16 09:13,

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid for Java 6.1.0 (RC2)

+1 * verified sha1 and md5 checksums * created virtualhost and queue via WMC * ran HelloWorld example * used SCRAM-SHA-256 authprovider * created Query, saved it and loaded it * used https to test VirtualHost#publishMessage and found some issues (QPID-7515) but I don't consider them blockers.

Re: java broker 6.0.2 OOM

See [1] for the 6.0.5-RC1 release announcement. Kind regards, Lorenz [1] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-VOTE-Release-Qpid-Java-6-0-5-td7652349.html On 20/10/16 16:34, Lorenz Quack wrote: Hi Ram, Hi Alex, I committed to fixes to the AMQP 0-10 code path under QPID-7465. This should reduce

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.1.0

Hi, While performing tests on this RC I found a couple of issues (and I have not concluded my testing yet). I think some of the issues found are serious enough to block this release. Therefore I vote to retract this RC. -1 Kind regards, Lorenz List of issues found so far: *

Re: java broker 6.0.2 OOM

this down. Kind regards, Lorenz On 19/10/16 16:54, rammohan ganapavarapu wrote: Thank you!! On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Ram, Hi Alex, thanks for sending me your example code and logs. I am now able to reproduce and I am i

Re: java broker 6.0.2 OOM

Hi Ram, Hi Alex, thanks for sending me your example code and logs. I am now able to reproduce and I am investigating now. It currently looks like there is a defect somewhere in the AMQP 0-10 code path. I will keep you posted. Kind regards, Lorenz On 18/10/16 22:13, rammohan ganapavarapu

Re: java broker 6.0.2 OOM

it back to dl queue. Q: Are the messages persistent or transient? A: They are persistent. Ram On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Lorenz Quack <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Ram, This seems curious. Yes, the idea behind flow to disk is to prevent the broker from running out of direct memory. Th

Re: java broker 6.0.2 OOM

Hello Ram, may I refer you to the relevant section of the documentation [1]. As explained there in more detail, the broker keeps a representation of each message in heap even when flowing the message to disk. Therefore the amount of JVM heap memory puts a hard limit on the number of message

Re: qpid.work_dir property is not honoring on broker startup

Hi Ram, Notice that in your example both QPID_WORK and qpid.work_dir are specified. It seems that currently QPID_WORK take precedence. I guess if the environment variable and system property QPID_WORK are not set then the broker picks up the qpid.work_dir property, right? Kind regards, Lorenz

Re: Help: Qpid shuts down itself automatically - Java qpid 0.32

Hello Bhargav, there is no "best value" for heartbeating. It all depends. Normally a TCP does not need heartbeating at all. It is usually used for two purposes * a simplistic sanity check that the other side is in a healthy state (e.g., does not "hang") * to prevent NATs or firewall from

Re: Removal of JMX management channel

Hello Ramayan, by common convention deprecated features eventually get removed after a deprecation period. I don't know exactly when JMX was first deprecated but in 6.0.x we stepped up the deprecation level by removing the documentation and the JMX ports from the default configuration.

Re: Flow to disk behavior with In Memory messages

Hi Ramayan, That is not entirely correct. Flow to Disk is only indirectly related to persistence. Persistent messages are *always* written to the message store before the message is acknowledged or the transaction completes. However, for performance reasons the broker will keep a copy of the

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Python 1.35.0

+1 * verified sha1 and md5 checksum * started a java broker and sent / consumed some ad-hoc messages * verified that channel_flow (aka producer side flow control QPID-6567) feature works Kind Regards, Lorenz On 17/08/16 15:09, Justin Ross wrote: The artifacts proposed for release:

Re: JAVA-QPID statistics API

HI Ram, I'm afraid that in 0.28 there is no way to only query specific attributes or statistics. Starting with 6.1 we Qpid for Java will support some SQL-like query capabilities but in 0.28 there is no such thing. Kind Regards, Lorenz On 12/08/16 23:20, rammohan ganapavarapu wrote: Hi,

Re: Qpid site and the security pages

On 15/07/16 09:56, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 15 July 2016 at 09:16, Justin Ross wrote: I've been working with the security pages recently, and there are two things I propose. First, I'd like to simplify the way we include the full CVE content. Instead of embedding it in

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.4 (RC1)

Hi, * Verified all the md5 and sha1 checksums * Started broker & poked around in the web management console * Run hello world example While poking around I found a couple issues which are not regressions and I don't consider blockers: * Help Menu link is broker (unexpanded context variable) *

Re: Qpid 0.32 Java Client Issue

Hello Simon, I'm sorry I am not familiar with most of the components you mention in your report. But I did noticed that in the stacktrace you see this: org.apache.servicemix.bundles.qpid:0.28.0.1 That made me think maybe servicemix is bundling version 0.28 of the Qpid Java client

Re: [Qpid Java Broker-6.0.0] Bug in popup window when adding a trust store and incomplete documentation

Hi, I believe the first issue was fixed as part of QPID-7112 [1] but the fix has not been backported so will only be part of 6.1. Kind Regards, Lorenz [1]

[CVE-2016-3094] Apache Qpid Java Broker denial of service vulnerability

CVE-2016-3094: Apache Qpid Java Broker denial of service vulnerability Severity: Important Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: Qpid Java Broker versions 6.0.0, 6.0.1, and 6.0.2 Description: A malformed authentication attempt may cause the broker to terminate. The Qpid

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.3 (RC3)

+1 I did the following successful testing: * run the unit and sys tests with the bdb.0-9 profile * ad hoc testing on linux * ad hoc testing on windows * verified sha1 and md5 sums On 19/05/16 12:04, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: Hi all, I have built RC3 for 6.0.3 Qpid Java Components. The

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.3 (RC2)

On 16/05/16 22:55, Rob Godfrey wrote: On 16 May 2016 at 18:27, Gordon Sim wrote: On 16/05/16 18:23, Rob Godfrey wrote: On 16 May 2016 at 18:21, Gordon Sim wrote: One further point to mention, a message sent over 0-10 to a queue could not be received

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.3 (RC1)

On 16/05/16 11:44, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 16 May 2016 at 10:59, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 12 May 2016 at 16:41, Keith W wrote: Hi all, A release candidate for the next release (6.0.3) of the Qpid Java Components has been created. The list

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

+1 On 30/03/16 11:25, Robbie Gemmell wrote: Hello folks, Many moons ago, a seperate mailing list was established for Proton, back when it was purely a protocol engine other components would use. Its scope has since expanded beyond that and the separate mailing list has I feel been an

Re: AW: potential java broker REST API bug

Hi Julien, As I alluded to in my other eMail, PUT can be used for both creation and modification. The specification [1] has the following to say: "The PUT method requests that the state of the target resource be created or replaced with the state defined by the representation enclosed in

Re: potential java broker REST API bug

On 07/03/16 08:14, Rob Godfrey wrote: On 7 March 2016 at 07:06, Julien Charon wrote: Indeed, copy paste error on this, sorry. I observed the behaviour not only for DELETE, but also for PUT. I.e. if I try to create a new queue and use a name of a queue that already

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java 6.0.1 (RC3)

On 22/02/16 11:51, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: Hi everyone, I created a new 6.0.1 RC3 build containing a fix for a blocker: QPID-6817 - [Java Broker] On abrupt connection close from client side when Broker is delivering messages to consumer, the delivering messages might not be released as part

Re: OAUTH2 authentication

On 23/02/16 12:08, Gordon Sim wrote: On 23/02/16 10:42, Lorenz Quack wrote: On 22/02/16 18:36, Gordon Sim wrote: What does the java broker use the sasl interchange for? Does it allow AMQP connections to specify XOAUTH2? Yes. In this scenario you would specify the access token as a password

Re: OAUTH2 authentication

On 22/02/16 18:36, Gordon Sim wrote: *snip* (Is there a SASL interchange defined for OAuth2?) There are 2 different SASL mechanisms that have been put forward, which are detailed on the JIRA (with links to the definitions): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7045. I believe

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid Java Components 6.0.0

+1 On 03/12/15 15:06, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: Hi folks, I would like to initiate new voting to release Qpid Java Components 6.0.0 RC5 as the final 6.0.0. Maven release artifacts are available from maven staging repo at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1056

Re: Welcome Lorenz Quack as a Qpid committer

t;robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> To: users@qpid.apache.org Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 3:26:50 PM Subject: Welcome Lorenz Quack as a Qpid committer The Qpid PMC have voted to grant commit rights to Lorenz Quack in recognition of his contributions to the project. Welcome,

Re: WELCOME to users@qpid.apache.org

web ui I can see vh as I created them from ui. Ram On Oct 1, 2015 1:10 AM, "Lorenz Quack" <quack.lor...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Ram, did you check the log files for errors? The broker log is located in ${QPID_WORK}/log/qpid.log Alternatively, did you check in the web managemen

Re: WELCOME to users@qpid.apache.org

quot;9099", "protocols" : [ "JMX_RMI" ] }, { "id" : "8a5e84c5-110a-43cd-895c-936e0845d8b4", "name" : "RMI_REGISTRY", "port" : "8999", "protocols" : [ "RMI" ] } ],

Re: WELCOME to users@qpid.apache.org

uot;MANAGEMENT-JMX" }, { "httpBasicAuthenticationEnabled": true, "name": "httpManagement", "pluginType": "MANAGEMENT-HTTP" } ], "ports": [ {

Re: WELCOME to users@qpid.apache.org

n't seem that way since the modelVersion of your config is 1.3. I believe 0.32 has model version 3.0. cheers, Lorenz On 30/09/15 16:27, rammohan ganapavarapu wrote: Lorenz, I was trying to connect using python as below. from qpid.messaging import * broker = "localhost:5672&quo

Re: WELCOME to users@qpid.apache.org

Hello Ram, By default you must authenticate with the broker before performing any management operation to prevent unauthorized access. The error seems to indicate that you did not do this. When you use the browser you can login via http://localhost:8080/login.html (assuming the broker is

Re: 'queue consumer closed' log message

Hello Patrick, the message seems to suggest that the consumer on the master closes while there are still messages in the pre-fetch queue. Those messages will be requeued. It is hard to tell why this is happening without knowing more about how you are using JMS in your application. How

  1   2   >