[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Results of the Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release vote. Vote passes with 4 binding +1 votes. The following votes were received: Binding: +1 Timothy Bish +1 Dejan Bosanac +1 Hiram Chirino +1 Claus Ibsen Non Binding: +1 Martyn Taylor +1 John D Ament +1 Clebert Suconic +1 Christopher Shannon Thank

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

+1 (binding) On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Hello all. > > I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release RC2. This RC2 addresses > the binary library inclusion in the source distribution and has made > progress on addressing the usability issues

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

+1 (non binding) I did a blind test from scratch, where downloaded the bin and source releases on a new linux box and tried out a few examples, started the broker, consumed the broker... used a lot of the data tools and it seemed all ok. On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Claus Ibsen

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

+1 Binding. On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Hello all. > > I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release RC2. This RC2 addresses > the binary library inclusion in the source distribution and has made > progress on addressing the usability issues

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

+1 (binding) Regards -- Dejan Bosanac about.me/dejanb On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Built from source and ran the quick tests > Checked LICENSE headers > Deployed and ran the broker from the binary on CentOS

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

+1 (non-binding) Built from source and ran the quick tests Checked LICENSE headers Deployed and ran the broker from the binary on CentOS Ran several different examples On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:25 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > +1 non binding. > > Source release looks clean,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

All, Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO. The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context of Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns. I realise there is an on going side discussion regarding legal documentation and perhaps contradictions

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Awesome news! On Jan 4, 2016 05:00, "Martyn Taylor" wrote: > All, > > Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO. > > The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context of > Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns. I realise there > is

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

+1 (binding) * Inspected the source distribution for binary artifacts. * Checked signatures and checksums * Ran broker from binary and tested with some external client examples. * Built from source and ran some tests. * Ran some of the Artemis examples to validate. * Checked for valid LICENSE and

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

+1 non binding. Source release looks clean, builds fine (even w/ spaces) For next release: please update copyright dates for 2016 (damn that first day after the new year) John On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:19 AM Martyn Taylor wrote: > Hello all. > > I'd like to propose an

[VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0 (RC2)

Hello all. I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release RC2. This RC2 addresses the binary library inclusion in the source distribution and has made progress on addressing the usability issues highlighted in RC1 feedback. Since 1.1.0 we've had some significant improvements to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Great, thanks for the update ! Regards JB On 01/04/2016 10:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: All, Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO. The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context of Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns. I realise there is

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

I do not see what the issue is here. We are not *distributing* any LGPL licensed library. We simply use it, if it is available. As Hiram said, how does this differ from relying on bash or win32? To quote the legal docs: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html "" CAN APACHE PROJECTS RELY

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

I have sent an email to the legal-discuss describing the issue. Please follow the thread at the legal-discuss list. On 24/12/15 11:15, Martyn Taylor wrote: I do not see what the issue is here. We are not *distributing* any LGPL licensed library. We simply use it, if it is available. As Hiram

[CANCEL][VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Cancelling vote, due to binaries in the source distro. We are getting very close to the holiday period now, so let's pick the 1.2.0 release up after the new year. Happy holidays all! Regards Martyn On 21/12/15 16:42, John D. Ament wrote: Sorry but -1 (non-binding) There are binary files

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Claus, fyi, Ive sent a PR with some of your suggestions, see https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/287. I'll take a look at the stuff ive missed in the new year. Merry Christmas. Andy On 21/12/15 07:45, Claus Ibsen wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

also, there has also been questions about it during the donation process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was something that was fixed now. The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal > discuss? If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release, would > be good to at least start the discussion. We had such discussion long

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal discuss? If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release, would be good to at least start the discussion. John On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:04 AM Andy Taylor wrote: > Claus, > > fyi, Ive sent a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

As John Says, lets run it past legal, if they are happy that what is shipped is ok then lets leave as is, if not, then make it an optional (as in it takes a flag/explicit) choice at create time. John, how do we do this? On 24/12/15 00:25, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:34 PM,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> Giving our users the information they would need to make it perform better is > giving them a worse experience? ok.. there's no technical or legal point about it.. but if that settles the discussion lets do it. I don't want to spend more time writing emails, talking to legal than I would on

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

anyway guys.. it's been a great year... lets enjoy the holidays.. chill out a bit.. It's been a great year and I'm happy to be part of this community. Happy holidays you all.. I'm out :) On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> Giving our users the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

My bad. Missread johns original message. Thought we was saying have prompt to enable libaio. Apologies. On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Hiram Chirino > wrote: > > > > -1 that seems

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > Anyways, Saying you can't depend on anything LGPL is the same as > saying you can't depend on Linux or anything coming from Linux. for > instance Apache HTTP (the very first project that founded this >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

What's the diffence between one platform api like aio and another like win32? They have about the same effect on our code. We can't distribute their libs and they don't force us to change our licensing terms. Btw the compiler you use has nothing to do with the libs you link against. And most

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: > > -1 that seems silly. There is no legal reason to do that and it gives our > users a worse experience out of the box. Giving our users the information they would need to make it perform better is giving them a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> libaio is NOT installed by default on pretty much any of the linux > “platforms" so I would have a hard time considering as a part of the > platform. linux AIO is part of the kernel. You have no choice over it if you are using a regular distribution. (Unless you recompile the kernel without it)

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Are you referring to the bin or src distribution? On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp wrote: > > Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker “out > of the box”, does it use libaio or not? If I specifically have to > configure something (pass a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

It's a configuration option in the broker.xml. however by default the cli will default to use it. Saying that it will only use it if it's libation has been installed, if it hasn't then NIO us used. On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:07 John D. Ament wrote: > Are you referring to the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

-1 that seems silly. There is no legal reason to do that and it gives our users a worse experience out of the box. On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, John D. Ament wrote: > +1 for a prompt on broker creation. > > It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:24 PM Hiram Chirino wrote: > So I think the current policy is not that hard to understand. > > It basically says that we cannot redistribute category x licensed bits. > Check. > There's a difference between depend on and distribute with. I'm

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Libaio is a kernel feature. Part of the Linux kernel. It's optional and the cli default to it if available in the OS. As Andy said. If what you are saying was true thought Apache HTTP would for instance have serious problems with libc and other libraries it's using for example. Libaio

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor wrote: > I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to > explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's > installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite. The issue with the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > Are you referring to the bin or src distribution? Kind of both… By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case. The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker “out of the box”, does it use libaio or not? If I specifically have to configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable use if the LGPL library, then fine.However, if it’s something that occurs

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

I think the binary distro uses the libaio.so if it's installed in your system. Since it's optional, the broker should still start up fine even if libaio is not installed, but it wont get used either. On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > Question: If I grab

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite. We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time. On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Let me explain what libaio is: it's a wrapper that makes calls into the kernel. if you for instance open libaio.c, this is the entire source code for io_submit (the most used function): io_syscall3(int, io_submit, io_submit, io_context_t, ctx, long, nr, struct iocb **, iocbs) See for

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

I think that's doable. I'll see if I can come up with a PR over the Christmas period and report back. On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 23:24 John D. Ament wrote: > +1 for a prompt on broker creation. > > It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your > Artemis

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

+1 for a prompt on broker creation. It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your Artemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag. John On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

So I think the current policy is not that hard to understand. It basically says that we cannot redistribute category x licensed bits. Check. Using the LGPL licensed libaio does not require us to change our license. Check. So we are working in a scenario similar to what is described in the "DOES

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> [ERROR] Command was /bin/sh -c cd > "/Users/johnament/Downloads/apache-artemis-1.2.0 2/artemis-commons" && > /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_51.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/bin/java The compilation issue is because you used a space ' ' on your directory had you used

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> But is still REQUIRED for building the library… Thus, the library still has > a REQUIRED dependency on a LGPL’d library to work.Thus, it must be > optional and the user must take explicit actions to enable it during build > and runtime. >>has a REQUIRED dependency on a LGPL’d library

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: > To me this seem the same as linking to glibc which is an LGLP lib and > a lib which just about every app on linux links to. Surely even apr > links to it right? That's correct... just like anything else in the Linux

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 12:41 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:34 PM Clebert Suconic > wrote: > >>> Nothing's stopping you from including them in the binary release. They >>> should be excluded in the source release. >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> Per Roy Fielding: > > "Apache releases open source and ONLY open source. Our releases are > absolutely > forbidden to contain anything other than the open source code that is in our > vcs-of-record, meaning code that is in the form most likely to be edited by > recipients for the sake of

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

To me this seem the same as linking to glibc which is an LGLP lib and a lib which just about every app on linux links to. Surely even apr links to it right? This can also be seen a linking against hibernate, but not distributing it. On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Daniel Kulp

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: > To me this seem the same as linking to glibc which is an LGLP lib and > a lib which just about every app on linux links to. Surely even apr > links to it right? > > This can also be seen a linking against hibernate,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Dec 21, 2015 1:42 PM, "Daniel Kulp" wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 2015, at 12:41 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:34 PM Clebert Suconic < clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> Nothing's stopping you from including them

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

So... create a ticket to track this? I can compile other stuff with spaces generally fine. Not sure what the issue is here w/ a space. On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:30 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > > [ERROR] Command was /bin/sh -c cd > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:37 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > So... create a ticket to track this? I can compile other stuff with spaces > generally fine. Not sure what the issue is here w/ a space. yep.. I don't think it's a release blocker. although if someone is able to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:55 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > > Actually, this is more serious than that. If I’m reading correctly, > libaio is LGPL. Thus, we cannot use it from an Apache release unless its: > > > We are not redistributing libaio.. libaio is a Kernel

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > >> >> Actually, this is more serious than that. If I’m reading correctly, libaio >> is LGPL. Thus, we cannot use it from an Apache release unless its: >> > We are not redistributing libaio.. libaio is a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

In particular, in org_apache_activemq_artemis_jlibaio_LibaioContext.c, I see right at the top: #ifndef _GNU_SOURCE // libaio, O_DIRECT and other things won't be available without this define #define _GNU_SOURCE #endif this has nothing to do with LGPL licenses.. or even libaio on this instance..

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > In particular, in org_apache_activemq_artemis_jlibaio_LibaioContext.c, > I see right at the top: > > #ifndef _GNU_SOURCE > // libaio, O_DIRECT and other things won't be available without this define >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

+1 (non binding) created and ran a server and a few examples. built from source ok. all on windows 10 On 18/12/15 17:36, Martyn Taylor wrote: Hello all. I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release. Since 1.1.0 we've had some significant improvements to performance, particularly

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

This is really great feedback Claus, it's exactly the type of thing we need. Thanks for taking the time to write this up. We'll get all your comments captured in JIRA and aim to address them in the next release. On 20/12/15 06:52, Claus Ibsen wrote: Hi +1 (binding) I gave the binary a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

+1 (binding) * Checked signatures and checksums * Ran broker from binary and test with some external client code. * Built from source and ran some tests. * Checked for valid LICENSE and NOTICE files. For the next release I'd encourage you to move ahead open issues that are still targeting the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Sorry but -1 (non-binding) There are binary files in the source release, under artemis-native/bin/ Ideally, the source release would include the C/C++ code required to build these so's, but I'm not sure that they're anywhere in the artemis codebase. In addition, compiling on a mac, latest

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

+1 (non-binding) Built from source and ran the quick tests Checked headers Deployed and ran the broker from the binary on CentOS Ran several different examples On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > This is really great feedback Claus, it's exactly the type

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

+1 (binding) All looks good to me. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Hello all. > > I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release. > > Since 1.1.0 we've had some significant improvements to performance, > particularly around the persistence layer.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 12:27 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:16 PM Clebert Suconic > wrote: > >> This has been like this since 1.0.0 >> >> > Then I missed them in prior votes. Mea culpa. We all missed them on the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

This has been like this since 1.0.0 The binaries are there for being easy of use for users who only want to build the jars. If they want to build the native part they can just refer to http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/1.1.0/libaio.html and use cmake . and make. and this is just on

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:34 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > > Nothing's stopping you from including them in the binary release. They > > should be excluded in the source release. > > > It's been easier to keep these .so there. I'm about to give up > maintaining 32 bits.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

> Also the output of the help command in the html looks ugly. Its not > spaced correctly. I'm not sure where you mean that? > > And its a bit unclear that after creating a broker you must cd into > that directory to start it. eg some people may think you can start the > broker from the unzip

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

+1 (non binding) Christian 2015-12-20 7:52 GMT+01:00 Claus Ibsen : > Hi > > +1 (binding) > > > I gave the binary a quick spin, and created a broker > > The readme.html file does not include 1.2.0 changes. But I really > think the readme.html should not include that

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> Also the output of the help command in the html looks ugly. Its not >> spaced correctly. > > I'm not sure where you mean that? > Open the readme.html in your browser. And then compare that to the --help output

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Hi +1 (binding) I gave the binary a quick spin, and created a broker The readme.html file does not include 1.2.0 changes. But I really think the readme.html should not include that details, but refer to the website for a changelog / migration guide etc. So the readme can be short and simple.

[VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Hello all. I'd like to propose an Apache Artemis 1.2.0 release. Since 1.1.0 we've had some significant improvements to performance, particularly around the persistence layer. In addition new features have been added such as LDAP and OSGi support. There has also been more improvements to