@Martyn: That's exactly what I'm planning.. Having the embedded Derby.. just for out of box testing.
someone would do ./artemis create --jdbc ./server-place and we would have artemis running with Derby right there. Now my question here was... where do we change to add stuff into lib. I changed dep.xml but it's not picking it up. On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael, > > I think all Clebert is suggesting here is to have something that works out > the box to demonstrate the JDBC store. Derby is a good candidate as it can > work in memory, and we it in a lot in our tests. I've actually not talked > to Clebert about this, so he can confirm/deny if this was his intent, but I > don't see this being related to maintaining a connector service > implementation? The only Derby specific thing here would be to ship the > lib as part of the distro and to configure a JDBC URL. I guess we could > ask for a JDBC URL as part of the prompt, and tell the user to drop the lib > on the class path, but having a quick and easy way to set up and test > Artemis + JDBC sounds like a UX win to me. > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Michael André Pearce < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Well it kind of is. >> >> are we then saying if a third party lib in this case Derby DB implements >> an interface that artemis provides in this case JDBC in the other case >> ConnectorService we are happy to depend on it and ship it with artemis? >> >> I really don’t want to upset or annoy you but at the same time I really do >> want an even playing field. >> >> As I already said I’m happy for artemis to have these. I think if someone >> is willing to support it let it be there. If it ends up being unsupportable >> remove it. Though that wasn’t the outcome from the last discussion. >> >> I really do think we need to have clear rules on this. That are generic >> about any component, for anyone. >> >> eg if a component lies without someone maintaining then after 6months it >> goes to inactive, if still after a year no one steps in it gets removed and >> moves to an attic. >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On 15 Jan 2018, at 02:14, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > That’s different. We are not implementing JDBC here. >> > >> > >> > We can still provide a pluggavle interface and have the feature you wrote >> > plugging into artemis. Even adding examples with dependencies towards >> it. >> > I think it was agreed back then. >> > >> > >> > That’s a different discussion from here though. >> > >> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:26 PM Michael André Pearce < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Yes. And JDBC the pluggable interface point, JDBC is the api. This is >> just >> >> as ConnectorService is the pluggable interface that’s a feature. >> >> >> >> Either we have some provided implementations of the pluggable interfaces >> >> that exist within artemis or none at all. >> >> >> >> I really see this as no different. I’m happy for it to be there, but >> then >> >> I’d like this to applied in general, and to add the kafka >> ConnectorService. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >>> On 14 Jan 2018, at 21:05, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> We already have jdnc as a feature. >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:47 PM Michael André Pearce < >> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> My two cents is about consistency of either we do provide integrations >> >>>> with other products out the box or not. >> >>>> >> >>>> If the arguments of people not wanting to add Kafka clients to the >> class >> >>>> path for ability to link Artemis with Kafka, because it means having >> to >> >>>> maintain it (see it’s thread for all discussion), I don’t see why >> >> linking >> >>>> Artemis with a specific JDBC vendors product like Apache Derby is any >> >>>> different here. >> >>>> >> >>>> Not that I’m against this, quite the contrary actually if I could add >> >>>> Kafka integration, but I would like this ruling to be consistent. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:51, Clebert Suconic <[email protected] >> > >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I would like to add an option on artemis create to enable jdbc. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> By default (if you don't provide any other configuration) it will use >> >>>>> derby by default on the properties. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> And I wanted to add derby as a dependency on ./lib >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anyone against it? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> so, you would do ./artemis create --jdbc >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> and it would configure derby as an option >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> (JDBC is not encouraged.. the journal is the best option.. but same >> as >> >>>>> in ActiveMQ5, some people need it). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> also: I'm trying to understand what I need to change on dep.xml under >> >>>>> artemis-distribution, but I can't make it to work... anyone can give >> >>>>> me a hand on that? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Clebert Suconic >> >>>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Clebert Suconic >> >> >> > -- >> > Clebert Suconic >> -- Clebert Suconic
