Sorry, (their implementation makes assumptions....) On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Martes Wigglesworth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the succinct response, Justin. > > This basically answers my question completely. > > The implementation has made some assumptions that are not > forward-compatible. > > Thanks so much for the quick response. > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > the artemis implementation of ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the >> setters and getters were removed? >> >> To be clear, the Artemis client implementation is 100% independent of the >> 5.x client implementation so, technically speaking, no setters or getters >> were removed. Also, it's worth noting that while Artemis has good feature >> parity with the 5.x broker there has been no concerted effort toward API >> compatibility between client implementations (of course excluding >> standards >> like JMS, JNDI, etc.). >> >> >> > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are >> expecting >> AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to. >> >> I'm not sure this is a valid expectation. As mentioned previously the two >> client implementations are separate and no guarantee of API compatibility >> has been advertised. The URL is really an implementation detail, and >> applications that rely on implementation details open themselves up to >> incompatibilities when moving between implementations. In the specific >> case of API compatibility I would strongly encourage users towards >> standards wherever possible in lieu of relying on implementation details. >> >> That said, if there's a simple change that would bring value to the >> Artemis >> client implementation I think it would be accepted. >> >> >> > Also, would this be more of a "user-list" post? >> >> Since this concerns the development of the broker (e.g. potential PR, >> etc.) >> the dev list is fine. >> >> >> Justin >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:36 AM, 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 was reading through the user-list just now, and someone made >> reference to >> > the AMP specification, and how certain property are immutable due to >> this >> > specification. >> > >> > Is that possibly the source for the change in api? >> > >> > I am new to AMQ-Artemis source, so I may have missed some documented >> reason >> > for this change, and would appreciate any info, including a "RTFM" link. >> > >> > Also, would this be more of a "user-list" post? >> > >> > > > > -- > 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] > -- 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]
