On 11/29/2017 02:13 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
This discussion has been open for 15 days. IMO we should move ahead with
whatever is the next step. Vote probably?
Yes, the PMC needs to vote on something, a discussion thread isn't a
vote. I'd suggest putting together a reasonably detailed proposal of
what you see as the future plan should be and start a vote.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM Christopher Shannon <
[email protected]> wrote:
After reading the discussion and thinking about it I think I am on board
with going with ActiveMQ 6.
What's the next step with this? Do we want to propose a vote or keep the
discussion open longer?
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote:
I think ActiveMQ needs a roadmap for sure and I think Artemis is the
future
for a bunch of technical reasons.
Without a clear direction going forward we will loose adoption because I
don't know anyone who likes making a choice.
If you are an existing ActiveMQ user there should be a clear path
forward.
If you are peeking at ActiveMQ for the first time you should find a
vibrant
project.
To avoid confusion, moving forward with ActiveMQ6 looks like the simplest
solution.
That implies migration but also a step migration because there is a new
architecture.
I would propose that the Artemis mainline becomes ActiveMQ 6.x.
Continuing the frequent release cadence of Artemis, any outstanding
migration issues can be promptly catalogued and addressed.
Gary.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 at 05:41 Clebert Suconic <[email protected]>
wrote:
The documentation does talk about those things. Migration guide is
just
a
quick guide on how to migrate but it does not replace the
documentation.
There was some good suggestions you made here as to tools to move
configuration automatically. But that’s not a requirement to make any
progress. We won’t ever get anuwhere if we aim for perfection as there
will
always be space for more. Nothing in life is perfect.
Tools and features I think it’s orthogonal to the discussion about the
direction.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:49 PM Tim Bain <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Nov 21, 2017 3:00 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
Another thought - having both brokers long term seems redundant as
there
is
a huge amount of overlap, and I believe the intent (please correct
me
if
this is wrong) is eventually to have Artemis superset all of the
*key*
functionality from AMQ 5.x.
I think all the features are covered at this point. The one exception
is Retroactive Consumers.. however this could be done with browsers
and paging.
It still on my personal list of improvements I want to make. I could
make it happen sooner with some demand.. So I don't think it blocks
anything going forward.
The other feature that has been brought a lot of times.. is virtual
topics.. however with the address model in Artemis.. it's not
needed..
as virtual topic was a way to emulate a queue within a topic, which
is
pretty much what we have on the address model.
In order to facilitate a move, users of AMQ 5.x are going to need a
smooth
transition. Note that I don't mean to say it has to be seamless,
just
that
it has to be smooth - easy enough to understand and execute.
Let me pose some questions here that may help move this forward:
- Do we know what it takes to migrates customers from AMQ 5.x to
Artemis?
https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/migration.html
^^ It's in good shape IMO already.
That guide has lots of good information, but it explicitly punts on
the
question of how to migrate a cluster that has existing unconsumed
messages.
Does a migration guide for that subject already exist? If so, let's
link
to
it; if not, I don't think we're ready yet.
There are two possible ways to migrate when messages are
pre-existing:
either you take an outage and convert the messages store somehow, or
you
network the old and new brokers but have clients use only the new
broker,
and you configure the brokers so that all of the messages flow from
the
old
broker to the new one without downtime. Note that the second approach
won't
migrate scheduled messages, so it might be necessary to use a hybrid
approach depending on the use case. Are Artemis and ActiveMQ capable
of
being networked together to allow the second approach? I've always
assumed
that it could be done since Artemis supports OpenWire, but I've never
heard
anyone say it was possible. I think we'd want the migration guide to
talk a
bit about options for how to perform the actual operational
migration,
not
just how to configure Artemis to make it behave similarly to ActiveMQ
or
HornetQ (though that's important too, and the guide does that well).
Also,
the guide should talk about what happens if a user wants to migrate
when
their broker contains more messages than will fit into Artemis's
memory,
since it's possible that some users might be in that situation.
(Hopefully
not many people, though!)
Also, I don't see any discussion in the guide of SSL transports even
though
a number of other protocols (both network and application) are
mentioned,
so that looks like something else that should be added.
- Do we have a comprehensive list of features that will remain
supported?
- Do we have a list of features that will not be retained?
We had a few discussions in the past... there could be minor features
still needed.. but it's getting better each day as users needed new
functionality.
The community aspect from the apache activemq community certainly
improved the software.
IMHO ActiveMQ Artemis is good enough that it can be improved as
needed
when missing points are found.. being an AMQ 5 missing feature or
anything else that users will need.
I don't think this bit addresses the last two questions that Art
raised,
which are not "do we have everything we need and can we afford to
wait
for
a fix if we discover that something's missing?" but rather "do we
have
a
written list of which features we're keeping and which if any we're
not
so
we can refer users to them?"
Hope this helps. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the
long-term
vision here. With that said, I do have some strong thoughts on
consolidation in the near-term and what's important in getting to a
long-term vision.
Artemis has been under works for 3 years and something now...
I am biased to speak about it as I work on it as part of my daily job
on this codebase.. but I have seen it getting better each day.. with
contributors from different companies.
I wonder whether we should provide some simple utilities to help
users
migrate their config files. The guide makes it sound like they
correspond
closely, so it should be relatively easy to convert any parts that
can
be
converted (automatically, or at least with user input) while also
highlighting any configuration that requires manual attention (which
gives
us an opportunity to point the user towards documentation about the
options
and any trade-offs that might come with them). That could also let us
build
a JAAS config file for anyone who's using the Simple Authentication
Plugin.
--
Clebert Suconic
--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
