@franz was something meant to come after the "like:" in your response?
@all do we have an area to detail and design out before implementing/coding features that add or amend key apis or functionality? To aid the discussion and design processes. Like an AMQ Improvement Proposals area? Sent from my iPhone > On 31 May 2017, at 13:24, Michael André Pearce <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Client side I think this is much less concern than broker side. Also > serialisation to from Java objects will create objects there's not much to be > done there the nature of the beast. > > ByteMessage at best we can put a single byte[], we could try expose the > internal netty buffer but then this gets a lot less user friendly, and out > the box many serialisation tools output to a java buffer (not netty)or byte[] > > I think the level they have in kafka which is essentially I'm proposing seems > to be good balance here and is kind of proven as it has picked up very good > traction there. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 31 May 2017, at 10:18, nigro_franz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> But about the API, I don't know how much freedom we could have here, but >> maybe could be nice to design something that allows zero garbage approaches >> from the beginning, like: >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Custom-Object-Serialisation-Support-tp4726741p4726788.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
