> Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning > of this thread? No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is some value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the arguments in support of removing it are "I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session and stateful nature" and "any time someone ask questions we just mention don't use it... (favoring stomp instead)" which I think would apply equally to "Classic".
> As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two > cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be > analyzed before voting for deprecation. How can we analyze usage? Anecdotally, Amazon MQ does not support REST on our managed brokers and we've never had anyone ask for it to be enabled. Just a datapoint, not saying we should make decisions based on that. - Lucas On 2022-09-12, 2:58 PM, "Cesar Hernandez" <cesargu...@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning of this thread? As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be analyzed before voting for deprecation. El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas (<tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió: > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same > arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc. > > We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as > incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting! > > - Lucas > > On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > 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 > > -- Atentamente: César Hernández.
