I'm okay with taking the stance that it's an acceptable "break" on removing LevelDB. As Hadrian pointed out, it's only non-backward-compatible for folks using LevelDB. Nobody else should be impacted.
With that said, can we clearly mark the release notes that it has been removed, and provide brief examples of LevelBD uses in the broker.xml file and pom.xml files that need to be eliminated for anyone that is impacted? Are there any other uses to mention? One point I'd like to raise on this subject - I don't want to just assume it's ok because it's happened before - the 5.x broker has already had multiple non-backward-compatible changes, such as the complete restructuring of the MBean name space about 2 years ago. Being mindful and choosing how changes are adopted - that's really what I'm hoping to achieve. Thank you for the discussion. Art On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Christopher Shannon < [email protected]> wrote: > I don't think it applies here either. Hadrian made the same point I was > about to just make which is that it's really just a configuration change > and not a code incompatibility. > > Also, there is precedent already. The old AMQ store was removed around > version 5.8 or 5.9 I think. > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Art, > > > > Valid concern. In my opinion it doesn't apply. From the messaging > > application perspective there is no backward incompatibility introduced. > > The broker behaves exactly as before. No need to change anything in the > > client code. > > > > What one could argue is that there is an incompatibility because > > configuration (activemq.xml) that used to work now doesn't. That is true > > and users, only the minority who use leveldb-store, will now have to > change > > configuration and retest. And that is mostly admins, not developers. We > > propose to address that by maintaining it for the foreseeable future on > the > > 5.15.x branch and give them ample time to migrate. > > > > Is that sufficient? Well, that's what this thread is meant to assess. > > That's why we have discuss threads. Not everybody will have the same > > opinion, but hopefully we converge on something. One of my pain points in > > proposing this is the long time it takes to test, which is something I am > > looking into again. The instability of the leveldb tests and the fact > that > > they are taking so long while leveldb-store is deprecated was one > > motivator. Fwiw, there are a couple of issues in mqtt and unit tests as > > well. A (not so) secret goal I have is to get the Jenkins builds back on > > green. Contributions appreciated :). > > > > Cheers, > > Hadrian > > > > > > > > > > On 12/21/2017 12:57 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: > > > >> I like removing it. > >> > >> One concern comes to mind - this really is a non-backward-compatible > >> change, right? Do we bump the major version number, or do we ignore > >> semantic versioning? > >> > >> I know that can get into a bigger discussion - I'm not trying to open a > >> can > >> of worms. However, I do think we need to be mindful of this concern. > >> > >> Art > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Christopher Shannon < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Yeah makes sense to see if anyone has any objections to removing it > >>> completely. I'm ok removing it but not sure if others are still > relying > >>> on > >>> it (We might even want to ask this question on the users list) > >>> > >>> Here is the original thread about the deprecation discussion: > >>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-LevelDB- > >>> deprecation-td4719227.html > >>> > >>> As I pointed out in my last post in that thread, we can still keep it > >>> around if there are objections but I suspect it will eventually start > to > >>> cause issues if we don't maintain it (such as if we upgrade to JDK 9, > or > >>> other dependencies being upgraded like Guava) > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Chris, > >>>> > >>>> I would mention that leveldb will still stay in 5.15.x which will be > >>>> maintained for a significant time, giving users enough time to migrate > >>>> > >>> back > >>> > >>>> to kahadb. > >>>> > >>>> Let's give it a few days and see how much consensus there is in the > >>>> community. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Hadrian > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12/21/2017 07:31 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1, it has been deprecated and not maintained for a while so probably > >>>>> > >>>> time > >>> > >>>> to be removed. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea < > [email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The activemq-leveldb-store module is already deprecated. Shouldn't > we > >>>>>> remove it in 5.16.0? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hadrian > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> >
