Plenty of commons projects use git... https://github.com/apache?q=commons
John On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
