> The activemq-protobuf project was split out from the main line project a > while ago...
Just to clarify, was this code ever directly part of the broker code-base? Looking back through the history it looks like it was always separate since it was created (almost 18 years ago now). > It is more work to maintain an independent module... What specifically is more work? It looks like the last commit to the protobuf code was 9 years ago [1]. Is it more about the overhead of the project itself? You mentioned release voting & issue management. Voting seems essentially like a non-issue since releases happen so infrequently. For issue management, it seems like GH Issues would be a viable solution. > Having this hosted will allow us to more quickly experiment and modify the > broker for any datastore changes that need to be made... Based on the project's README.txt, it is a "API to accessing Protocol Buffer data structures" which seems like the ideal use-case for a separate code-base since it would be 100% agnostic about how it's used (e.g. Netty). I'm not super familiar with this code and how it's used so maybe I'm missing something. Justin [1] https://github.com/apache/activemq-protobuf/commits/trunk/ [2] https://github.com/apache/activemq-protobuf/blob/trunk/README.txt On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:04 AM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > > The activemq-protobuf project was split out from the main line project a > while ago and I don’t think it serves the project having it split out. > > 1. It is more work to maintain an independent module that is rarely used by > any other project (JDK alignment, Maven modules, release, vote, issues, etc) > see: > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.activemq.protobuf/activemq-protobuf/1.1 > > Note: The next release would automatically signal an upgrade to any > consumer of this jar by the version number being higher than the current > > 2. Having this hosted will allow us to more quickly experiment and modify the > broker for any datastore changes that need to be made— changes to > activemq-protobuf and other activemq-* modules may need to be merged together > for feature changes vs ‘guessing’ if a design works in activemq-protobuf, > releasing and then changing the main broker modules. > > PR discussion here: > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1209 > > Here is my +1 (binding) > > -Matt Pavlovich --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
