Why the silence? There was a raging debate here, then it went to a raging
debate in private (just hearsay) and the board insisted on a report and surely
there’s actions resulting from all this. The community is curious.
On Apr 25, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Tracy Snell tsn...@gmail.com wrote:
So
So what happened? There are a lot of users with a lot of unanswered questions.
Silence for the community from the leaders seems to not only include most of
the debate but then even informing us on decisions made in private that affect
us.
Love this “open” source community.
On Apr 21, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Justin Bertram jbert...@apache.com wrote:
In my opinion, one could chalk this up to the fact that the two communities
are in the process of consolidating.
No crossover at all is not consolidation. The propose release was completely
done by a team independent
Mine were from artemis start until a day or two after the debate began, your’s
is for all git history.
On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Clebert Suconic clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
I see different lists on both sides:
On activemq:
$ git shortlog -s -n
1408 Hiram R. Chirino
How about that the community working on AMQ5 and Artemis/HornetQ/AMQ6 had no
overlap when this debate began. AMQ was to become something new with a
completely new set of developers was the appearance. That concern is what
started the whole incubator debate.
On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Hiram
In almost every scenario I’ve worked in there have always been multiple
consumers. If the queues backed up we’d add more consumers to drain the pipe.
I’ve never had a single queue situation either.
When I think of server scalability I think of being able to handle a multitude
of high volume
On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Tracy Snell tsn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Clebert Suconic clebert.suco...@gmail.com
mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com wrote:
It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
sub-project and we would incorporate changes
On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Clebert Suconic clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed... and 205 Pull requests with
about 400
Well, they are frequently pointed out as being voiced by a “couple” of
dissenters and claims that those dissenters are calling the RH side evil. It’s
a nice debate tactic completely avoiding the actual points at hand.
There have been valid questions, voiced by more than a couple that more often
Many of us would like to be but those discussions about the future of the
community are hidden from the community.
On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Bruce Snyder bruce.sny...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree simply because the folks on dev@ are not familiar with PMC
discussions.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-97?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14494346#comment-14494346
]
Tracy Snell commented on ACTIVEMQ6-97:
--
First time I've heard that.
Change HQ
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-97
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-97 in the comments indicates
that AMQ6 needs to provide legacy support for HornetQ. This is a surprise to me
and I haven’t seen anything where this was mentioned as part of the plan (and
it’s
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-97?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14494328#comment-14494328
]
Tracy Snell commented on ACTIVEMQ6-97:
--
So ActiveMQ now has to include legacy
My understanding is that there’s a raging debate on this topic in the private
mailing list. This seems entirely against the community ethos of Apache. Does
the PMC get to debate this in private and make a decision on the future of the
project without the rest of us in the community even seeing
On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet gno...@apache.org wrote:
Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it, given
everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git repo has
been named activemq-6 and all the commits lead to messages on the
Who are in the 90% club and are they really all on board with the new broker?
On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet gno...@apache.org wrote:
In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when they
On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Clebert Suconic clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Second: it gets really recursive. it becomes an extra layer of
abstraction where you need the code as fast as possible.
I’ve never considered abstraction a performance penalty.
Still thinking about the merits
On Mar 28, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID
wrote:
If you hate red hat say so.
I’m pretty sure Jim is a big RedHat fan. http://www.jimjag.com
http://www.jimjag.com/
I am too actually. I have a bunch of friends that work there and it’s obviously
a great
Stats for the last 12 months (jan - jan) show both projects about equal.
Hornetq has an edge on number of committers but not a big one.
https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq
https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq
I have read the
On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:42 PM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID
wrote:
I therefore see the opportunity to integrate the hornetQ broker as an
incredible opportunity for the activemq community and totally don't
understand why all the pre-existing committers aren't contributing
It’s more like “Railroading without consensus not welcome here”. No one is
upset that someone is working too hard. Yet another completely ridiculous
assertion.
On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:57 PM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID
wrote:
It certainly makes me feel like innovation not
It should be totally obvious by now that not everyone saw the initial proposal
as a wholesale replacement with HornetQ and then some code taken from the
horribly slow and rudderless AMQ5. You’re seeing a LOT of “wait a minutes…” now
that it is clear. You don’t buy it but it’s still the feeling
On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:56 PM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID
wrote:
My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking
a messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not
going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this
I’m unsure how those claiming to not see an issue don’t see this one. It’s more
akin to a take over of a brand than a team moving to a new technology. There’s
the HornetQ team and the AMQ5 team with depressingly little cross over. That
should’ve been goal number one. Merging the teams in to one
On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Christopher Shannon
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com mailto:christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com
wrote:
As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
the community join together to support one broker going forward would
produce a better broker than by splitting up
I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of
activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going forward
(it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue). The current course
of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14241064#comment-14241064
]
Tracy Snell commented on AMQ-5009:
--
Claus, your advice conflicts with the advice
I’ve updated a utility I originally wrote for Camel to work with a lot more
projects. You can pick two versions of ActiveMQ and it’ll show you what
dependencies are added, changed, deleted or unchanged.
http://vdiff.notsoclever.cc/diff/apache/activemq
You can also specify the versions in the
I’m pretty sure there’s another couple of threads with the Hawtio discussion
that you can refer to to come up to speed on that debate :)
I don’t recall Angular or Bootstrap being a pro or con in that debate.
On Feb 10, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Zakeria Hassan zak.hassan1...@gmail.com wrote:
I think
I haven’t made any proposals. Just asked a question I was curious about. Last
time I looked at hawtio is was fully Apache focused but I haven’t looked in a
while. Thanks.
Does seem to be more Apache dislike than I expected. I never thought of it as a
place that discouraged innovation. Apollo
I bit off topic but I’d love to hear the reasons. Especially since it’s a
product entirely focused on providing a console for Apache projects.
(my income will remain undisclosed)
On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:10 AM, Robert Davies rajdav...@gmail.com wrote:
hawtio isn’t at the ASF for other reasons.
Agreed a console for a bunch of Apache projects seems darn near perfect for
Apache.
On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Robert Davies rajdav...@gmail.com wrote:
I’m not a member of the hawtio community - but they were pretty clear they
didn’t feel the ASF was the best place to innovate and develop
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2964?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tracy Snell closed AMQ-2964.
Resolution: Fixed
Oops, created in the wrong project. Sorry.
CAMEL-JMX component
CAMEL-JMX component
---
Key: AMQ-2964
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2964
Project: ActiveMQ
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Tracy Snell
Priority: Minor
The author of a camel
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2689?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tracy Snell resolved AMQ-2689.
--
Resolution: Fixed
I updated both pages.
alwaysSessionAsync is documented incorrectly on the wiki
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2641?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=58093#action_58093
]
Tracy Snell commented on AMQ-2641:
--
Timestamps are set on the client. Are you sure the clocks
36 matches
Mail list logo
