Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Michael André Pearce]

Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the 
direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x, but 
simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.


On your commends about JBoss.

I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its 
versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors 
re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache Project, 
NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.

Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own versions, 
such as:

Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
Apache Kafka with Confluent 
Apache Ignite with GridGain

They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the upstream 
Apache projects.

On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a RedHat 
person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a company that 
uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from their 
documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based on 
ActiveMQ 5.X.

Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should be 
agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this discussion 
IMO. 

On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your question re 
adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it switching from it 
seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of Artemis, they would 
obviously have customers using it, and others transitioning from their previous 
version.

Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:

* Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of the 
options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X 
(https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
* WildFly is using it reading their docs 
(https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
* Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
 * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
 * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io

Cheers
Mike










> On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef  wrote:
> 
> -1  I think we need to slow down.
> 
> While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made. 
> Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> deprecating AMQ 5 now.
> 
> For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
> this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
> then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
> ActiveMQ 6.
> 
> ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
> the greatest of attention and care.
> 
> Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> * What is the full list of features needed?
> * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> * How stable is Artemis?
> * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
> 
> Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
> 
> Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> transition for customers as possible.
> 
> Please start to enumerate these points.
> 
> BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
> is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
> confusion.
> 
> ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
> vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
> having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
> these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
> 
> I'll post the link there now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as...

[clebertsuconic]

Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687
  
@andytaylor @tabish121 onError isn't needed on this case... 
IOCriticalListener would kick in before (which is kicked after that method 
somewhere through the native interface on AIO).


@andytaylor I think your changes here are fine. It would be nice to see a 
test.. but it's fine..


I think it's ok to merge this, assuming you ran the AMQP tests on the 
testsuite.


---

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[artnaseef]

-1  I think we need to slow down.

While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made. 
Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
deprecating AMQ 5 now.

For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
ActiveMQ 6.

ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
the greatest of attention and care.

Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
* What is the full list of features needed?
* How much adoption does Artemis have?
* How stable is Artemis?
* What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...

Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.

Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
transition for customers as possible.

Please start to enumerate these points.

BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
confusion.

ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
these discussions and votes on the PMC list.

I'll post the link there now.





--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Howard Gao]

+1

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Timothy Bish  wrote:

> +1
>
>
> On 12/04/2017 03:32 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>
>> linked here for convenience :
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surr
>> ounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-
>> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>
>>
>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> [+1] -  agree
>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>
>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>
>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>>
>>
> --
> Tim Bish
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1679: ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cluster

[jbertram]

Github user jbertram commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1679
  
It would be ideal to have a real test in the test-suite to validate this 
functionality instead of just an example.  I think that once a test was created 
you could get rid of the example completely.  If you wanted to keep the example 
after the test was created I would move it to the protocols/mqtt section rather 
than the features/clustered section.


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1679: ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cluster

[jbertram]

Github user jbertram commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1679
  
It looks a lot better, but you need to squash your commits together into a 
single commit.  Once that's done I'll kick off a full test-suite run with your 
changes and see how it goes.


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1684: ARTEMIS-1498: Openwire internal headers should...

[michaelandrepearce]

Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1684
  
On that note, going through the OpenWireConverter that currently converts 
OpenWire to Core on produce, there is many places where its not setting the 
correct matching properties (or methods) on core because it has them hardcoded 
as string, instead of using the constants from Message (in core).

Example

```
  String groupId = messageSend.getGroupID();
  if (groupId != null) {
 coreMessage.putStringProperty(AMQ_MSG_GROUP_ID, groupId);
  }
```

Here the property being set is "__HDR_GROUP_ID" where as in core Message if 
using the constants from there, then actually what should be set is

```
  String groupId = messageSend.getGroupID();
  if (groupId != null) {
 
coreMessage.putStringProperty(org.apache.activemq.artemis.api.core.Message.HDR_GROUP_ID,
 SimpleString.toSimpleString(groupId));
  }
```

so that it actually sets the correct property than then is handled by other 
converters properly. (its seems this is quite numerous in the converter, just 
briefly going through it. )

(please be aware this are of code I'm less familiar in artemis with but a 
brief look through, i see such oddities)


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1679: ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cluster

[Skiler]

Github user Skiler commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1679
  
Hi @jbertram 

I changed the way it create the Bindings based in wildcard. I hope it's 
good now :)


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1684: ARTEMIS-1498: Openwire internal headers should...

[michaelandrepearce]

Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1684
  
So here I would either suggest that these are not copied to core message 
when converting to core, but if need because of consuming with openwire 
consumer then probably better but a bit more work is to make OpenWire Message 
so it doesn’t convert on produce only on consume eg some work is done to make 
it implement some internal interfaces as like what was for for amqp, this would 
save conversion to core also if producer and consumer are openwire making it 
more performant.


---

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Timothy Bish]

+1

On 12/04/2017 03:32 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:

Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
ActiveMQ project roadmap"

linked here for convenience :
- 
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
- 
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html


I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.

[+1] -  agree
[-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
[0] - neutral but go ahead

This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.

Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.



--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1688: ARTEMIS-1537 broker was less strict whi...

[stanlyDoge]

GitHub user stanlyDoge opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1688

ARTEMIS-1537 broker was less strict while reloading configuration



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/stanlyDoge/activemq-artemis-1 E689

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1688.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #1688


commit 653b995e3dcda0b026dce4dcf4155d317950faf1
Author: Stanislav Knot 
Date:   2017-12-05T16:01:20Z

ARTEMIS-1537 broker was less strict while reloading configuration




---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1644: ARTEMIS-1503 Added ng-grid plugin

[stanlyDoge]

Github user stanlyDoge commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1644
  
Yes, there is described reproducer by reporter of this issue. 

> > you try to browse the queue to check the messages and you have more 
than 40 messages ( depends on your screen size ), at the end not just 1 or 2 
messages but a lot.
> In case you have more than 200 message than you cannot paginate but for 
that there is another jira.
> Thanks
But for me it seems this has been fixed before. I can't see any white space 
at the bottom of the page.


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1644: ARTEMIS-1503 Added ng-grid plugin

[jbertram]

Github user jbertram commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1644
  
Any update on this?  It's been waiting for additional info for 20 days.


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1686: ARTEMIS-1534 added openwire logging (tr...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1686


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1685: ARTEMIS-1533 Import subschema's so XMLL...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1685


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1682: NO-JIRA Documentation: fix filenames of...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1682


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as...

[clebertsuconic]

Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687
  
@andytaylor are you in a hurry to merge this? if so, I will take a look 
later today.


But usually onError is not very useful. I will need to look at the solution 
closely.


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1675: ARTEMIS-1526 NullpointerException in Ac...

[asfgit]

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1675


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as...

[andytaylor]

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687
  
@clebertsuconic what do you think, should we do something in onError at 
least fro discharge?


---

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as...

[Clebert Suconic]

It’s cslled upon IO errors but there is also the critical listener that
would shutdown the broker before. So I’m not sure the error is very useful
On this context.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:53 AM tabish121  wrote:

> Github user tabish121 commented on the issue:
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687
>
> Is it true that there's nothing that will be calling the IOCallback
> onError method?  If that isn't the case then it seems like there's a
> possible case here where the Declare or Discharge is never answered as in
> the error case no disposition or settlement is done which would leave a
> client dangling awaiting a response.
>
>
> ---
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as...

[tabish121]

Github user tabish121 commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687
  
Is it true that there's nothing that will be calling the IOCallback onError 
method?  If that isn't the case then it seems like there's a possible case here 
where the Declare or Discharge is never answered as in the error case no 
disposition or settlement is done which would leave a client dangling awaiting 
a response. 


---

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon]

+1, This would probably be a good time to update the website to a more
modern design as well

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Rob Davies  wrote:

> Sounds good - I recast my vote to +1
>
>
> > On 5 Dec 2017, at 13:18, Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
> >
> > Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.
> >
> > If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
> > consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the
> closing
> > vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
> > without working on it)
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies  wrote:
> >
> >> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing
> users
> >> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who
> >> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all
> >> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> >>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >>>
> >>> linked here for convenience :
> >>> -
> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> >>> -
> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> >> ActiveMQ 6.
> >>>
> >>> [+1] -  agree
> >>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> >>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >>>
> >>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >>>
> >>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >>
> >> --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Rob Davies]

Sounds good - I recast my vote to +1


> On 5 Dec 2017, at 13:18, Clebert Suconic  wrote:
> 
> Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.
> 
> If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
> consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing
> vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
> without working on it)
> 
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies  wrote:
> 
>> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users
>> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who
>> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all
>> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>> 
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> -
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> -
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>> 
>>> [+1] -  agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>> 
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>> 
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>> 
>> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic]

Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.

If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing
vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
without working on it)

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies  wrote:

> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users
> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who
> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all
> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>
>
>
> > On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
> >
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
> --
Clebert Suconic

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as...

[andytaylor]

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687
  
don't merge this yet


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same ...

[andytaylor]

GitHub user andytaylor opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687

ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as sending the disposition

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1535

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-1535

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #1687


commit 21e572c5816850d6c72b82d62e80114aec363a0b
Author: Andy Taylor 
Date:   2017-12-05T12:12:54Z

ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as sending the disposition

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1535




---

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Rob Davies]

[0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users 
moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who may 
then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together. This 
could be counter productive to the original intent. 



> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic  wrote:
> 
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> 
> linked here for convenience :
> - 
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - 
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> 
> 
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 
> 6.
> 
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
> 
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> 
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Gary Tully]

+1

On 5 Dec 2017 7:59 am, "Francesco Nigro"  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> Il giorno mar 5 dic 2017 alle ore 04:17 Francois Papon <
> francois.pa...@openobject.fr> ha scritto:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Francois
> >
> >
> > Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> > > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> > >
> > > linked here for convenience :
> > > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> > ActiveMQ 6.
> > >
> > > [+1] -  agree
> > > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> > >
> > > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> > >
> > > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >
> >
>

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1684: ARTEMIS-1498: Openwire internal headers should...

[RaiSaurabh]

Github user RaiSaurabh commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1684
  
@michaelandrepearce @clebertsuconic 
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. I checked the code of 
OpenwireMesageConverter when we send a message using client if comes to 
(https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/artemis-protocols/artemis-openwire-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/openwire/OpenWireMessageConverter.java#L122)
 where we set all the internal headers with __HDR as message property and 
return the CoreMessage.
If we try to receive the message from the Openwire client we use these 
message properties to set them as ActiveMQMessage object properties like ID 
etc. Now with the case, if I use the AMQP/ Core receiver the message that is 
fetched is in form of ICoreMessage in CoreAmqpConverter class 
(https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/artemis-protocols/artemis-amqp-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/protocol/amqp/converter/CoreAmqpConverter.java#L104)
 and all the internal headers of Openwire are present as message properties. 
Hence I decided to stip it off from the CoreAmqpConverter class. I was not able 
to find any better place. If you could point me that would be great.


---

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Francesco Nigro]

+1 (non-binding)


Il giorno mar 5 dic 2017 alle ore 04:17 Francois Papon <
francois.pa...@openobject.fr> ha scritto:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Francois
>
>
> Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
>