For this release, are there plans to bring the Openwire dotnet client up to spec with the current 4.0 java implementation?
Cheers, Rob. On 5/22/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok. quick status report on the 718 issue. I applied the patch and the good news is that subsequent openwire version is still compatible with version that is in the current 4.0 release candidate that we voted on. This is because our Java implementation of openwire does not use/validate the size prefix on each command. That size prefix was put there to support future NIO based transports and other openwire implementations where having the size prefix makes it easier to implement the protocol. So I'm all for just including the patch as bug fix in the next (4.1) release of activemq. So I'm still at +1 for releasing the current binary. On 5/22/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so 718 was partially valid. I'm going to rebuild and test the new > client against the 4.0 rc. If the patch does not break compatibility > with 4.0, then I think we can let 4.0 go out as is. if it does break > compatibility then I think we will need to recut a new release > candidate for 4.0. > > Any opinions? > > > On 5/22/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Opps. I just reviewed that patch. and It does not seem to be valid. > > I think I may have jumped the gun on putting in my -1. So I'm > > retracting my -1 for now, and asking for anybody out there that is > > interested in the openwire internals to peek into the AMQ-718 and > > double check me. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On 5/22/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I retract my +1.. This issue has just been reported: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-718 > > > > > > We have a small inconsistency in our wireformat that if we don't fix > > > now, we will never be able to fix. > > > > > > So -1 on the release, and I'll start working on applying the provided > > > patch. Thanks for the sharp eyes Andrew Lusk! > > > > > > > > > On 5/20/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > James Strachan wrote: > > > > > We've had the 4.0 release cut for a little while and we've tested it > > > > > out and it seems to be fine and to comply with the various release > > > > > requirements (notice file, incubator disclaimers, license files etc) > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0/maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The release notes will show up here as soon as the mirrors catch up... > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-40-release.html > > > > > > > > > > if you are impatient, here's the wiki page for the release notes: > > > > > http://goopen.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+4.0+Release > > > > > > > > > > Please vote to approve this release binary > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release the binary as ActiveMQ 4.0 > > > > > [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments) > > > > > > > > > > If this vote passes, then we will then ask the Incubator PMC for their > > > > > blessing to ship this release officially. > > > > > > > > > > Here's my +1 > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Congrats on all the great work! > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Hiram > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > > -- > Regards, > Hiram > -- Regards, Hiram
