On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:16 PM John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, in theory you could create an Apache Messaging Components project > that was made up a variety of small projects like this. > > For Kafka-JMS, I would strongly encourage you to work with the Kafka > Community to bring this to them first instead of creating a new project. Sure. That was just a rhetorical possibility. Didn't mean to list exact projects now. Just trying to determine in what direction this could go. > > John > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:12 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > There would be possibly a few smaller projects > > > > > > For now I can see at least 3. > > > > Pool > > Serialialization avro > > Kafka-JMS Integration. > > > > > > It would be beyond the scope of commons I think. Unless they are ok with > > many small projects. > > > > > > In the past I wanted to spinof the journal and libaio separately also. > > Could we make this in this context of a new project ? > > > > Iif we made it something like messaging-tools these could all fit in the > > same sub project?. > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:52 PM John D. Ament <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > We can definitely try an incubating project, if it makes sense for this > > to > > > be an eventual TLP or subproject. However, I was wondering if Apache > > > Commons was a possible location for this project? They tend to run > with > > ad > > > hoc smallish projects with a single PMC with enough oversight to cut > > valid > > > releases. Their projects are generally smaller, utility libraries and > > the > > > core inners of projects. > > > > > > Let me know if you want to proceed with incubation. We'd need to dig > up > > > some mentors for the project. > > > > > > John > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:48 PM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 06/09/2017 09:58 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > > > > Do we not already have precedent for something similar? NMS is a > > > > sub-project of ActiveMQ but includes support for non-ActiveMQ > brokers. > > > > > > > > The NMS bits aren't quite the same as this as the initial goal of > that > > > > was to create a .NET based ActiveMQ client and it sort of morphed out > > > > from there. There are some similarities though and in those you can > > > > kind of see the problem of putting a bunch of non-ActiveMQ type bits > > > > under and ActiveMQ subproject. The NMS project has never grown much > of > > > > a community of developers to support all the various client > > > > implementations, there's many just two people who contribute. As > such > > > > the project has mostly died, there hasn't been any releases in a long > > > > time, an some of the implementations have never seen an official > > release > > > > as there was nobody to manage it. I felt for a long time like NMS > > would > > > > have been better served as it's own project but my desire to work on > > > > .NET code is quite low so I never pushed to move it to incubator but > > > > really that's what should have happened in my mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On 06/09/2017 09:04 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > > >>> Yip. That's the idea. The connection pool was mentioned at the > top > > > > from > > > > >>> Michael. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'm just thinking if we could expand the scope a bit so we won't > > open > > > > a new > > > > >>> incubatorb project for just two libraries. > > > > >> The initial scope as presented was > > > > >> > > > > >> {quote} > > > > >> Some of these could be: > > > > >> PooledConnectionFactory > > > > >> Proposed custom serdes idea > > > > >> Possible future kafka integrations > > > > >> Etc. > > > > >> {quote} > > > > >> > > > > >> Given you've got two concrete one sort of abstract and one etc it > > > seems > > > > there's some hints at there being more than just two libraries. The > > > thing > > > > I'd prefer not to do is to create stuff that gets hidden in the noise > > of > > > > the ActiveMQ project which is to create a great messaging broker > where > > it > > > > could be something that can stand on its own and have its own > community > > > etc. > > > > >> > > > > >> It seems that some actual thought about what you are trying to > > achieve > > > > with these proposed bits will help sort out where they should live. > > The > > > > natural thing to do is create new ActiveMQ modules are subprojects > but > > > just > > > > because it's easy to do that doesn't always mean its the best thing > in > > > the > > > > long run. > > > > >> > > > > >>> Someone could argue that a messaging integration library should > > live > > > on > > > > >>> Camel as the Messaging Integration project. > > > > >> Someone could argue that Camel already provides quite a bit of > > > this.... > > > > >> > > > > >>> But I won't discuss much this now. I'm about to travel and won't > > be > > > > able > > > > >>> to answer emails next week. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:34 AM Andy Taylor < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> The JMS connection Pool currently in ActiveMQ could live there > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 9 June 2017 at 04:52, Clebert Suconic < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> As long as we can define a bigger scope.. otherwise wouldn't be > > an > > > > >>>>> overkill to start a project for this? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> What's the name? commons-messaging? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> but there's already a commons project within apache... > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I will be away for 2 weeks... Hope this to be sorted while I'm > > away > > > > .. > > > > >>>>> .please??? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Just kidding though.. if it's not sorted.. I may revisit this > > route > > > > as > > > > >>>>> well. for now @michael use your or a new github account until > we > > > > >>>>> figure out where. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Timothy Bish < > > [email protected]> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> On 06/08/2017 11:21 AM, Michael André Pearce wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> Hi All > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to discuss proposing a new sub project , named > > > > >>>>>>> "activemq-extras" > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> There is some common / generic components not specific to > > > > activemq5 , > > > > >>>>>>> artemis, qpid jms that currently live within or without some > > > extras > > > > >>>>> project > > > > >>>>>>> would end up living in one. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Some of these could be: > > > > >>>>>>> PooledConnectionFactory > > > > >>>>>>> Proposed custom serdes idea > > > > >>>>>>> Possible future kafka integrations > > > > >>>>>>> Etc. > > > > >>>>>> Given the scope outlined here as well as the aspiration to > make > > > > this a > > > > >>>>> cross > > > > >>>>>> cutting set of features that work with clients that aren't > part > > of > > > > >>>>> ActiveMQ > > > > >>>>>> land but just JMS clients in general then I'd lean towards a > -1 > > of > > > > >>>>> creating > > > > >>>>>> a new subproject or building new modules into Artemis that > > provide > > > > >>>> these > > > > >>>>>> features. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> My suggestion would be to go the route of an incubator project > > > where > > > > >>>> you > > > > >>>>>> could work out the goals as aspirations of this new project > and > > > > build a > > > > >>>>>> community around that. I think there would be more > willingness > > > from > > > > >>>>> folks > > > > >>>>>> that aren't ActiveMQ centric developers to contribute to a > > project > > > > that > > > > >>>>>> lives on it's own given the current goal seems to be that it's > > > > >>>> something > > > > >>>>>> that works with many different JMS client implementations, > most > > of > > > > >>>> which > > > > >>>>>> aren't ActiveMQ.... > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Have a look at the incubator process ( > > > http://incubator.apache.org/) > > > > I > > > > >>>>> think > > > > >>>>>> it lends itself to what's being proposed here more so than > just > > > > >>>> spinning > > > > >>>>> up > > > > >>>>>> a subproject and starting to write some code. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> The idea then is these "extras" are generic in fact they can > be > > > > >>>>>>> released independently, > > > > >>>>>>> don't affect the core products > > > > >>>>>>> are generic meaning they can be re-used. > > > > >>>>>>> Optional for end users to use. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Cheers > > > > >>>>>>> Mike > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>> Tim Bish > > > > >>>>>> twitter: @tabish121 > > > > >>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > >>>>> Clebert Suconic > > > > >>>>> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Tim Bish > > > > >> twitter: @tabish121 > > > > >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tim Bish > > > > twitter: @tabish121 > > > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > -- Clebert Suconic
