Re the naming: native would be a module for all the sub component sharing native interfaces of any kind. I prefer that too even if, effectively ATM we will have just libAIO on it...
Il giorno mer 30 gen 2019 alle ore 18:18 Clebert Suconic < clebert.suco...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > I would not like to make the libaio part of the name. A similar > mistake happened on the Netty Project, when I tried to bring libaio > into netty. Their native library was for epoll at the time only and > that made things complicated at the time. They later made things more > generic but I never got to bring libaio there again (I don't think it > made sense for Netty). > > We may have only libaio now, but I can foresee adding more things in > the future, like New APIs for future Storage.. future network.. > dunno... I just like to keep the name open. > > If you don't like the name native that's fine.. but libaio is too > restrictive. > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:15 PM michael.andre.pearce > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Just on name front. I would call it activemq-libaio > > Native is a bit too generic, it could mean support for epoll, kqueue or > even cpp client also. > > Re vote, i think rather than a vote for this specific sub project. We > should decide on common guidelines for sub projects and rules for future, > for me its better we agree and vote on policies to make clear rules. > > E.g. > > We could be voting for a policy such as > > "a sub project is deemed a project that is supporting or adding to the > activemq ecosystem, a sub project can be created without the need for vote, > simply by the support of a single pmc member or two committers sponsoring. > On creation a NOTICE should be sent to dev mailing lists" > > In such guideline / rule got voted on then this would obviously would > not need separate vote, as would have a pmc member sponsoring (yourself > clebert) > > > > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > -------- Original message --------From: Francesco Nigro < > nigro....@gmail.com> Date: 30/01/2019 16:58 (GMT+00:00) To: > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis Native as > a separated project > > +100 for this one and I would be pleased to do it, maybe with the help of > > both Clebert and Otavio (that's quite good with native stuff!) :) > > Obviously Michael you know that you're more then welcome on it as well > eh, > > I'm just taking the initiative :D > > > > Il giorno mer 30 gen 2019 alle ore 17:51 michael.andre.pearce > > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> ha scritto: > > > > > Tbh, i see nothing wrong with making it a mini sub project. If anything > > > having some sub projects is a good thing. > > > Would the supporting java code be moved also? > > > And would we look to make the interfaces more generic? > > > Im keen if we separate something thats currently tighly embedded in > > > artemis, we make sure it is much more re-usable (e.g. even example > > > alternative uses). > > > On that note, i think there are other bits that could be split out, a > bit > > > like what occured in activemq5. > > > E.g. spring integration, protocol manager, other extensions > > > And should welcome this a little more with newer extensions or features > > > that enhance activemq but not core broker. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > > -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic < > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 30/01/2019 16:31 (GMT+00:00) To: > > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ Artemis Native as > a > > > separated project > > > One of the modules of ActiveMQ Artemis is the Native Layer: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/056cee4183a048028c0a5417304eb89a540e1316/artemis-native > > > > > > We currently hold all JNI Calls (pretty much libaio ATM). > > > > > > It is stable and the release cycle is very long. Maybe one or two > > > changes an year with the current scope. This may become different if > > > we expand the scope of JNI operations supported by the broker). > > > > > > I would like to make it a separate git repository from ActiveMQ > > > Artemis, with its own releasy cycle. (we would even be able to remove > > > the currently .so that are currently checked in on artemis). It is > > > the sensitive thing to do. > > > > > > I don't think it as a separate project, just as a separate repository > > > with its own release cycle to make things easier. > > > > > > I would like to name it ActiveMQ-Native, dropping the word Artemis, as > > > it would be used for any further JNI operations needed for any other > > > Java Projects part of ActiveMQ Artemis. We currently only have libaio, > > > but I would keep the door open for other JNI operations we may need. > > > > > > > > > I was wondering if anyone have any other ideas around it. > > > > > > > > > Also: Would we need a vote to proceed on such change after we reach a > > > consensus on what to do here? > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
