This probably warrants a separate thread On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings Justin. > > Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of > ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed? > > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are > expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to. > > By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting > and getting brokerURL. > > Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch > and it required either a legacy named wrapper of ActiveMQConnectionFactory, > or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and > getBrokerURL. > > I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to > create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the > situation before moving forward. (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring > access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods > which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.) > > Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH? > > I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list. > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who > > wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already. > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > -- > Martes G Wigglesworth > Senior Middleware Consultant > Red Hat Consulting > Red Hat, Inc. > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 > Office Email: [email protected] >
