Yeah that's the tricky part, I'm not sure how doable it is but figured if it was ever going to be looked at then a major version change would be the time to re-visit.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 1:03 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > We will have to find a way to comply with older clients though. We can > break the API but compatibility with older clients has always been > respected. > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look > at > > things to fix that are breaking changes like the spec violations I > pointed > > out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1262 . The issue > has > > been around for at least 5 years when I opened the Jira. I didn't see a > > good way to really fix it without breaking client behavior but I still > > think it should be fixed. > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:40 AM Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I will go ahead and remove it... > > > > > > > > > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic > > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now > > > > > > > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t > > > see many options to keep it. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell < > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of > chance > > > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> > if > > > >> noone objects' :) > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic < > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > I will go ahead and remove it... > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the > session > > > >> > and stateful nature. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather > bring the > > > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this > > > >> > module has to go for sure. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires > various > > > user > > > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in > > > doing....I > > > >> > > think removing it makes sense. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic < > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis > has > > > been > > > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest > > > interface is > > > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not > > > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention > > > don't > > > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead). > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis > > > into 3.0... > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Any objections? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > Clebert Suconic > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
