One extra reason to not use commons:
SVN :) How would we proceed? Since this is a new project I don't think we need a vote here at activemq right? On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Clebert Suconic
