[GitHub] activemq pull request #209: AMQ-6497 Add method to navigate interceptors

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/209 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

ARTEMIS-806 discussion WAS: Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

Great! I am tmio on IRC, when is a good time to catch you? I tried to find you when I filed the bug but was probably too late in your day. > On Nov 4, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > Hi Antoine, > > I'm sorry your issue has not been addressed yet, I've been

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

+1 (binding) * Built from source and ran some tests * Ran broker from Binary release * validated signatures and checksums On 11/03/2016 09:13 PM, John D. Ament wrote: +1 non-binding - Confirmed no binaries in the source release - Built from source John On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:29 PM

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

+1 On 11/3/16 4:29 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: Hello all, I would like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.5.0 release. 1.5.0 has these new features as highlights. [ARTEMIS-724] - Implement no-local consumer support in AMQP [ARTEMIS-737] - Add JUnit Rules [ARTEMIS-743] - Default the queue address

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

Hi Antoine, I'm sorry your issue has not been addressed yet, I've been meaning to look into this myself, but have been snowed under with other things recently. We should be able to get this resolved and into to a release soon. I'm more than happy to help you get started with the code base, the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

I would absolutely love to help with a fix. That’s why I created the bug and provided reproduction steps. However I was stomped with the code itself and have had no luck reproducing this at smaller scale. I did ask on the mailing list for help and steps to help move this forward further. Your

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user graben commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @andytaylor: Have a look into http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-i-use-jms-efficiently.html --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

We had a lot of fixed done on 1.5.0... I guess it wasn't clear if your issue was a configuration issue or an actual bug. But we try to fix as many issues we can between each releases. We will get there eventually, maybe you could even give us hand on the fix? that's the beauty of open source. On

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user mattrpav commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @graben agreed. Queue Consumer use cases: # Connection(s) | # Queue(s) | Option | Desired Behavior --- | | --- | - 1 | 1 | |

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @graben It sounds different, what is it a pool of, connections? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user graben commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @andytaylor: I mean the usage of one single pool which is used to send/receive concurrently to multiple topics and virtual topic consumers. Such are often used in integration

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @graben Im not sure what you mean by shared pooling but if you mean a pool of consumers subscribed to the same topic then thats what JMS 2.0 gives you. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user graben commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @andytaylor: One big advantage of queue semantics vs topic subscriptions is the usage of shared pooling. No need for clientId@JMSComnection. Every single pool connection can be used for

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

I have just tried the release bits with the bug I reported (ARTEMIS-806) and I see the same incorrect behavior, where MQTT subscribers are not notified of messages published to another node in the cluster. I therefore am casting +0 (non-binding). > On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Christopher

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

+1 (binding) On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Fabio Gomes dos Santos < supergr...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > 2016-11-03 19:29 GMT-02:00 Clebert Suconic : > > > Hello all, > > > > I would like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.5.0 release. > > > > 1.5.0 has these new

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user rlodge commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @mtaylor What I'm hearing is that basically, following changes in 780, a client would be able to send to an address "RecordUpdateNotifications", other clients could subscribe to

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user mtaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @rlodge So one thing we are working on right now is adding is the ability to directly address a queue from a consumer. All of this is upcoming in Artemis-780 jIRA (which I will

[GitHub] activemq pull request #209: AMQ-6497 Add method to navigate interceptors

GitHub user hzbarcea opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/209 AMQ-6497 Add method to navigate interceptors You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/hzbarcea/activemq amq-6497 Alternatively you

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @rlodge cheers, makes sense. All that is implemented now, It just needs exposing in the protocol layers when an Openwire JMS client connects to a virtual topic. Like I mentioned before

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user rlodge commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @andytaylor We have a single topic, like "VirtualTopic.RecordUpdateNotifications". The system doesn't have a list of who's receiving it; downstream systems subscribe to Queues with the

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @mattrpav thanks for that, for point 1, everything supported on a queue is supported on a subscription as thats actually what it is. Maybe Artemis is just not exposing some of these.

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @rlodge so I think all that is doable without having to add the notion of a virtual topic. With the addressing changes this should be even easier to add to the Openwire protocol

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user mattrpav commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @andytaylor its a couple things beyond just shard topic subscriptions (JMS 2.0). #3 being super critical and highly valuable. 1. Using queues instead of durable topic subscribers

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user rlodge commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 A discussion on the dev list would at the very least leave those of us who don't subscribe out of the discussion . . . Our use case for virtual topics in ActiveMQ is fairly

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user mtaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @clebertsuconic +1 @mattrpav and @rlodge if you could provide us some more information about your use cases, we can see if current features or those coming in ARTEIMS-780 can help

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user mtaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 With regards to the general Virtual Topics use case. We're making some improvements to the Artemis addressing model. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-780. I think these

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 IMHO we should move this discussion to the dev-list, with the following: i - use cases ii - required changes. iii - how it's being implemented on the PR.

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user rlodge commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @andytaylor I'm not sure what you mean by "implements topic style addressing using queues" --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @rlodge you can have as many consumers you like on a QueueSubscription with Artemis. You can limite the client-id if you like, but you can also bypass that.

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user mtaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 Firstly we are making some major improvements to the Artemis addressing model that might help here. @mattrpav > selectorAware: This allows an interested subscriber to

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @rlodge In the core Artemis Broker there is no concept of Topics, they don't exist. Its just a facade on the client and a small amount of config and management. The core Broker only

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @rlodge Thats what I am asking :), Artemis supports JMS 2.0 and shared consumers and implements topic style addressing using queues anyway. I'm asking for an explanation as to what else

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user rlodge commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @andytaylor How does Artemis provide the same functionality by default (without configuration for each "virtual topic / queue" being added to the broker's configuration)? This is one of

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user andytaylor commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @graben Could you explain why virtual topics need to be added. As far as I was aware in ActiveMQ its just to provide shared consumers and queue like semantics on a topic which Artemis

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #875: ARTEMIS-550 Add virtual topic support

Github user mattrpav commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/875 @graben re: Transacted: if the PostOffice is transacted by default, that's great. The option in 5.x felt more like a "shore-up" to get to transacted. I don't see a compelling

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

+1 2016-11-03 19:29 GMT-02:00 Clebert Suconic : > Hello all, > > I would like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.5.0 release. > > 1.5.0 has these new features as highlights. > > [ARTEMIS-724] - Implement no-local consumer support in AMQP > [ARTEMIS-737] - Add JUnit Rules >

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #880: Upgrade Proton version

GitHub user paulgallagher75 opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/880 Upgrade Proton version You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/paulgallagher75/activemq-artemis

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

Ah.. right.. for some reason I opened the JIRA and read the openwire change. I guess my browser was already opened on it and I made a mistake. The information I provided on the sync change is very relevant for this release though... but Martyn answered your specific question. On Fri, Nov 4,

[GitHub] activemq pull request #195: Activemq 5.11.x

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/195 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

[GitHub] activemq pull request #208: AMQ-6494 Process SHUTDOWN_INFO and REMOVE_INFO t...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/208 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

Hi Fabio, Essentially, this ticket allows a user to configure a queue using only the queue name. For example Previous to this ticket, an error would be thrown if this happened, as this queue does not have an address configured on it. With this improvement, users are able to do this, and the

Re: Performance enchancements on 1.5.0 + Artemis-743 Was: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

Ok! thank you about explanation... 2016-11-04 10:52 GMT-02:00 Clebert Suconic : > forking the discussion thread as the previous was for the vote > > - Openwire was missing OperationContext implementation > - libaio is now calling fdatasync > > Before this change,

Performance enchancements on 1.5.0 + Artemis-743 Was: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

forking the discussion thread as the previous was for the vote - Openwire was missing OperationContext implementation - libaio is now calling fdatasync Before this change, based on the documentation you would need to disable write-cache to have syncs on the disk being performed promptly. We now

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

can you give more detail about that ticket? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-743 what will change? 2016-11-04 5:41 GMT-02:00 Bennet Schulz : > +1 > > > On 3 Nov 2016, at 22:29, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.5.0

+1 > On 3 Nov 2016, at 22:29, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > Hello all, > > I would like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.5.0 release. > > 1.5.0 has these new features as highlights. > > [ARTEMIS-724] - Implement no-local consumer support in AMQP > [ARTEMIS-737] - Add