[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

There were 5 binding +1 votes, and no other votes received. The vote has passed. I will add the archives to the dist release repo and release the maven staging repo shortly. The website will be updated later after the artifacts have had time to sync to the mirrors and maven central.

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29/06/16 22:19, Robbie Gemmell wrote: As a bit of a tangent, I'm not actually the biggest fan of 'authenticatePeer: no' since it doesnt actually stop the router offering mechnisms that do authentication and then fail when used. Yes, 'requireSasl' might have been a bit more precise. Even if

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29 June 2016 at 19:38, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 29/06/16 16:52, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> I think I misinterpreted your use of "predefined" earlier. I was only >> really considering whether I think it makes sense for a client example >> to use user credentials by default (I

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29/06/16 16:52, Robbie Gemmell wrote: I think I misinterpreted your use of "predefined" earlier. I was only really considering whether I think it makes sense for a client example to use user credentials by default (I do, but also like the flexibility of your patch, so will overlook that :P),

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29 June 2016 at 16:18, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 29/06/16 14:26, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> On 29 June 2016 at 14:11, Gordon Sim wrote: >>> >>> On 29/06/16 13:43, Robbie Gemmell wrote: I personally dislike examples using ANONYMOUS, though I can

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29/06/16 14:26, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 29 June 2016 at 14:11, Gordon Sim wrote: On 29/06/16 13:43, Robbie Gemmell wrote: I personally dislike examples using ANONYMOUS, though I can see the appeal that it avoids particular credentials, and may be easier out the box for

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29 June 2016 at 14:11, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 29/06/16 13:43, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> I did it that way as a way of showing folks how to do authentication >> when creating the connection from the factory. > > > Which is indeed valuable. > >> I personally dislike >>

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29/06/16 13:43, Robbie Gemmell wrote: I did it that way as a way of showing folks how to do authentication when creating the connection from the factory. Which is indeed valuable. I personally dislike examples using ANONYMOUS, though I can see the appeal that it avoids particular

Re: default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29 June 2016 at 13:36, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 29/06/16 13:30, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> Its usiong guest:guest as those are >> the credentials passed to the connection factory when creating the >> connection. > > > Doh! I should have realised that. Changing the example to

default SASL mech in JMS examples (was Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0)

On 29/06/16 13:30, Robbie Gemmell wrote: Its usiong guest:guest as those are the credentials passed to the connection factory when creating the connection. Doh! I should have realised that. Changing the example to not specify a user and password resolves the issue. Might that be a better

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

On 29 June 2016 at 13:17, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 27/06/16 17:33, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> I have put together a spin for a 0.10.0 Qpid JMS client release, please >> test it and vote accordingly. >> >> The source and binary archives can be grabbed from here: >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

On 27/06/16 17:33, Robbie Gemmell wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a spin for a 0.10.0 Qpid JMS client release, please test it and vote accordingly. The source and binary archives can be grabbed from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/jms/0.10.0-rc1/ Those files and the

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

On 27 June 2016 at 17:33, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have put together a spin for a 0.10.0 Qpid JMS client release, please > test it and vote accordingly. > > The source and binary archives can be grabbed from here: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

+1 ... I used the staging repo and tested the client against different versions of Qpid C++ broker. On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have put together a spin for a 0.10.0 Qpid JMS client release, please > test it and vote

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

+1 * built from source distribution artefact and ran all tests (mvn verify) * ran Joram JMS tests against the Java Broker (trunk and 6.0.3) using the staged Maven artefacts * verified the signatures, MD5s and SHAs of the source and binary distribution artefacts On 27 June 2016 at 19:18, Timothy

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

+1 * checked the license and notice files in the archives * built from source and ran all tests. * ran the example against an ActiveMQ broker * ran the ActiveMQ broker tests using the artifacts from the staging repo * gave the updated docs a once over. On 06/27/2016 12:33 PM, Robbie Gemmell

[VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.10.0

Hi folks, I have put together a spin for a 0.10.0 Qpid JMS client release, please test it and vote accordingly. The source and binary archives can be grabbed from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/jms/0.10.0-rc1/ Those files and the other maven artifacts are also staged for now