Github user stanlyDoge commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1688#discussion_r155719121
--- Diff:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/deployers/impl/FileConfigurationParser.java
---
@@ -253,9 +253,12 @@ p
GitHub user pgfox opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1696
NO-JIRA fixed minor regression and broken tests in ActiveMQServerControlImpl
fixed minor regression and broken tests due to refactor in ARTEMIS-1364
You can merge this pull request into a
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1695
On note of perf it should note that it doesnât stop someone setting it to
true, it just makes the behaviour by default (eg expectation) to be correct,
which is most important
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1695
Eg out the box you expect JMS behaviour to be correct that exceptions are
thrown in these cases and likewise if unable to send to the broker it throw me
exception. Behaviour sho
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1695
How would you solve this issue then? On testing performance in our system
(itâs quite high perf) this really didnât have any impact (if anything it
reduced latency)
---
FWIW- An offline KahaDB export / Artemis Journal import tool was an idea
I added to the wiki page Bruce setup. Maintaining messageId I think is
the most critical element, and we could leave behind things like
incomplete transactions, message groups, etc.
On 12/7/17 10:00 PM, Clebert Suconic wr
Thanks, Clebert.
Bruce
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:57 PM Bruce Snyder
> wrote:
>
> > I have suggested a similar tool that will read the ActiveMQ 5.x XML
> > configuration and convert it to an equivalent Artemis config. I think
> this
> > wo
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1695
I'm not sure we'd want to change the default here as it will have
significant performance implications.
---
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:57 PM Bruce Snyder wrote:
> I have suggested a similar tool that will read the ActiveMQ 5.x XML
> configuration and convert it to an equivalent Artemis config. I think this
> would be easier to create than making Artemis read ActiveMQ 5.x configs.
>
> For some reason I th
I have suggested a similar tool that will read the ActiveMQ 5.x XML
configuration and convert it to an equivalent Artemis config. I think this
would be easier to create than making Artemis read ActiveMQ 5.x configs.
For some reason I thought that Artemis supported KahaDB, but I'm not sure
where I
Github user gaohoward commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1689
thanks guys
---
Thanks for getting this started Bruce.
The migration portion is going to be tricky and we need to discuss more how
to handle it. Maybe we need to write a tool to help convert the old 5.x
XML config to the Artemis config or update Artemis to be able to read a 5.x
style config. Obviously not every
This looks great, Michael. It's also a great proof-of-concept, nice work. I
like the look of it, but I don't think we want to completely copy the
Metron site, so we will need to change it up.
I'm working on getting the exported HTML from the ActiveMQ Confluence space
and I will dump it into a new
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1689
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1689
Thanks @gaohoward merged.
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690
@jbertram great cheers for that.
---
+1 from me as well. Recording the session is a great idea for anyone who
can’t make it
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:52 PM artnaseef wrote:
> +1 Count me in. Hope I can make it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
>
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1689
Looks good. I canât merge it now. But it will do as soon as I can. (Or
anyone can do it)
---
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690
@Skiler, btw this will go into 2.5.0 since 2.4.0 has already been released.
---
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690
@michaelandrepearce, I'm working on this PR with @Skiler. I plan on
amending it before merging to deal with all the stuff you mentioned (plus a few
other things).
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690#discussion_r155677138
--- Diff:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/postoffice/impl/WildcardAddressManager.java
---
@@ -30,6 +25,1
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690#discussion_r155676825
--- Diff:
artemis-protocols/artemis-mqtt-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/mqtt/MQTTPublishManager.java
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690#discussion_r155676188
--- Diff:
artemis-protocols/artemis-mqtt-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/mqtt/MQTTPublishManager.java
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1689
+1 LGTM
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1689#discussion_r155675756
--- Diff:
artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/api/core/Message.java
---
@@ -631,7 +631,9 @@ default Message
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1688#discussion_r155675210
--- Diff:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/deployers/impl/FileConfigurationParser.java
---
@@ -253,9 +253
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1688#discussion_r155674146
--- Diff:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/deployers/impl/FileConfigurationParser.java
---
@@ -253,9 +253
+1 Count me in. Hope I can make it.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
GitHub user michaelandrepearce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1695
ARTEMIS-1545 Ensure JMS security exceptions occur if NON-PERSISTENT
Add test case to ensure exception behaviour on JMS MessageProducer send is
the same, if message is sent pers
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1694
---
GitHub user cshannon opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1694
ARTEMIS-1538: Allow trustAll to apply from a connection URI
Previously when configuring a connectionFactory by URI this property was
ignored
You can merge this pull request into a Gi
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1693
---
Agree with Jeff. I will address another question that was raised, I
think by Chris, below. I think it was aggressive, not characteristic to
him, so let's say he deserves an honest answer.
First off, I am not sure what your definition of contributions to the
project is. I am also curious what l
Great idea Clebert
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
This is a great idea.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
GitHub user tabish121 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1693
ARTEMIS-1544 Use the proper types when accessing ApplicationProperties
Use Map to access the ApplicationProperties section
which is the spec defined type for that section. This will
My latest theory is that I'm reading messages in 'threaded' view, and
others in timeline.. probably half the problem.. lol
On 12/7/17 11:38 AM, artnaseef wrote:
I don't know about you guys - but I often feel like I'm arguing with myself
in an echo chamber when trying to find a way to move thes
I'm not opposed to doing a call, but let's try to work further via email
before we take this route. I can dump what I have into a git repo as a
sandbox and we can start to play around with it.
Bruce
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Michael André Pearce <
michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote:
> +1 o
I'm currently in process of getting familiar with a codebase, and would be
very happy if this happens, great initiative!
- Art
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> Trying to be more positive here... ;)
>
> Would there be anyone interested on having a walk through on Artemis
I don't know about you guys - but I often feel like I'm arguing with myself
in an echo chamber when trying to find a way to move these discussions
forward.
:-)
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
For all the folks arguing that change is not needed - let me ask a question.
Is the concern clear?
I thought Clebert's post showing the mailing list did a good job, but we can
talk more about the concern.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Yep.. its going to be painful. Thanks for digging into it and having
numbers.
I still think putting smart-eyes on it (with a plan on where it should
go) is the best for the long run. One big painful push and then be in a
happy place going forward... hopefully.. ;-)
On 12/7/17 10:39 AM, Br
Thanks for pointing this out, Dan. I was about to try PanDoc last night but
ran out of time. I will spend some time trying out PanDoc today. I will
also get the raw HTML exported from Confluence into an ASF git repo for all
to see.
Bruce
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Ther
+1 for amq5 docs part gitbook is really clean and tidy.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 7 Dec 2017, at 16:50, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> What about this.. there's a lot of stuff that's doc...
>
>
> What if we made docs for AMQ5 instead of converting to another
> format.. it's the same work regard
There are some things available to convert the confluence xhtml to markdown:
Example:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/confluence-to-github-markdown
I’m not sure how good of a job they do, but it might be better than nothing.
Dan
> On Dec 7, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> That's t
Nice idea Clebert. I'd be happy to jump on and help out.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> Clebert-
>
> I think this is a great idea. I really appreciated when you did this for
> me in the past. It was informative and helped me clarify my questions on
> feature gaps.
>
> -
Agree on jekyll.
Here’s a sample I’ve mocked up with an activemq look and feel (and much
lighter) based around the new logo
https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq-site/tree/master/site
I forked from metrons to get most of the bits like Jekyll etc which is already
working.
Sent
What a great idea.
I wouldn’t even wait for a more friendly UK time one , I’d be there even if it
was evening here!! This would be really appreciated.
Cheers
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
> On 7 Dec 2017, at 16:20, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Clebert-
>
> I think this is a great idea. I really
What about this.. there's a lot of stuff that's doc...
What if we made docs for AMQ5 instead of converting to another
format.. it's the same work regardless.. and Markdown for docs it's
easier.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> I have poked through some of the exported HTML
That's the big hurdle I have identified, the initial conversion to
Markdown. Perhaps a manual hackathon is the best way.
Bruce
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that Markdown would be a good idea if we can figure out a good wa
+1 on Matt’s idea, maybe we get a base website design and some sample pages
migrated, and agreed on with this group first.
Is it worth maybe having a virtual meetup to discuss the design etc (maybe some
form of webex or Skype call?) to try work to some sample? What time zone Matt
and Bruce are
I would prefer to use Markdown with the Jekyll framework (
https://jekyllrb.com/). Jekyll handles Markdown, it handles CSS (via SASS)
and it would allow the site to live in a git repo.
Also, I found that other projects use Jekyll with great success, here is
just one example in the Flink project:
I agree that Markdown would be a good idea if we can figure out a good way
to convert it.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> +1
>
> I like the Markdown (or whatever easy format.. non xml based). We will
> need to choose a framework for that. do you have anything in mind?
>
Bruce, could you take what you have and put it up somewhere, perhaps in Git
so we can take a look? Cheers.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> I have poked through some of the exported HTML pages from Confluence and
> there is so much cruft in there. E.g., large amounts of con
+1
I like the Markdown (or whatever easy format.. non xml based). We will
need to choose a framework for that. do you have anything in mind?
I also think we should have a consistent look and feel.
I will be supportive on this...
First thing will be to have a framework chosen..
Second to have
I have poked through some of the exported HTML pages from Confluence and
there is so much cruft in there. E.g., large amounts of content wrapped in
tables -- blech! I've also experimented with the text2html Python script
and it does not convert these HTML files to Markdown very well, even if I
skip
If we can settle on a target format, I'd be up for dedicating time for a
hack-a-thon to just blaze through it. While painful, I believe we could
get it done quickly.
On 12/6/17 10:20 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
Several opinions have been expressed recently that the ActiveMQ website
needs some att
Clebert-
I think this is a great idea. I really appreciated when you did this for
me in the past. It was informative and helped me clarify my questions on
feature gaps.
-Matt
On 12/7/17 9:55 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
Trying to be more positive here... ;)
Would there be anyone interested o
Although if we make it in the afternoon.. it would be night for UK /
Europe.. What UK/Europe people think?
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> Maybe we could alternate times... once in the morning (to *favour* UK
> and European people..) once in the afternoon / evenings to f
Maybe we could alternate times... once in the morning (to *favour* UK
and European people..) once in the afternoon / evenings to favor
America's people.. that includes US and Latin America)...
it will be recorded regardless..
We could make this first one between afternoon or evening. (assuming
ev
This is an excellent idea, I like it. We can start by walking through the
Artemis code base and let it evolve into discussing the roadmap. I also
like the idea of recording the call and making it available so that others
who cannot attend so that they could view it at a later time. In fact, even
th
+1 Bruce... thank you.
I wish we could lock threads... like in forums...
Lets puhlease puhlease move on... this is just getting tiring. The personal
attacks have to stop.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
I agree. I have not and will not start any attacks of that sort.
However, I must respond and defend anything inbound in a public forum.
On 12/7/17 9:49 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
I'm sorry but I need to jump in here. The rhetoric in this discussion is
not only unnecessary but it is also highly unp
Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>> "When it's ready, Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6"
>>
>> I think there is consensus forming around that.
> Agree. For those voting -1 on the "when its ready.." let's be
> constructive. Provide path forward.
We did. Read the thread.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.
Trying to be more positive here... ;)
Would there be anyone interested on having a walk through on Artemis
Codebase.. how things works, hacking time... questions
we could record it.. and post it online for a later view.
(we would focus on hacking and coding).
Maybe, we could make this mo
On 12/7/17 5:28 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
I don't agree with the premise of this discussion at all. It seems to be
born out of a your replies to your self in an echo chamber.
Agree
What are the adverse consequences in providing a robust migration path for
5.x users to activemq 6 *within* the Acti
I'm sorry but I need to jump in here. The rhetoric in this discussion is
not only unnecessary but it is also highly unproductive. Instead of
resorting to petty disagreements, let's stop responding to this thread and
find a more productive topic on which to focus your energy.
Knock it off and go wr
There is more to dev discussions than just code.
Example. Roadmap. Architectural decisions. High level stuff that could
catch some folks who’s opinion are valuable but don’t like spending time on
messages like. Hey there is an extra space here. Things we talk on GitHub
PR.
This change can’t bot
Jeff- Lol.. whatever and you have never partnered with Red Hat?
On 12/6/17 5:43 PM, jgenender wrote:
I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
work and have products that suppor
Given that the message volume of non-PR messages on the dev@ list is not
that high, wouldn't it make some sense to
discuss anything which is not low-level code-oriented stuff on the users@
list, and keep using dev@ for archiving the low-level code-focused PR
discussions?
--
Jiri Daněk
I'm putting this out there - hope folks will read it as I found it very
helpful. It's not technical...
https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit4.php
The numbered list is the most pertinent part IMO. I post it here because I
see a trend in the communication that I think this helps to a
I'm 0 on this. Hadrian makes a very valid point and it opens up some
interesting thoughts.
I'm +1 for Artemis becoming a top level project because yes, based on the
infighting, etc, it may be best that it forms its own living/breathing
community. I am personally exhausted from the fighting. If
Hadrian, +1, and very well said. I had a response ready to go, but you
summed up the most parts. I will fill in a few holes...
Martyn (and Chris I guess) I am asking that you please put down your
pitchforks. The history of the players, not the employer per se, but the
small subset has caused q
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:12 AM Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.
>
> When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was
> said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does
> have an agenda. There are a few people who refus
You continue to make more accusations, justifying yourself by accusing me
of being disingenuous. These statements are just plain ignorant. They
don't warrant a sensible response.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.
> When we s
Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.
When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was
said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does
have an agenda. There are a few people who refuse to have conversations
that ignore the elephant in the room.
Why? You going to verify my affiliation or something? I don't have
anything to prove to you. As Tim said in another thread you don't
intimidate me either.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:38 AM, jgenender wrote:
> Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.
>
> Who are you affiliated
Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.
Who are you affiliated with, Chris?
christopher.l.shannon wrote
> As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and
> I
> am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well
> and
> getting l
As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and I
am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well and
getting lumped into having an agenda.
I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit the
past couple of years. My motiva
Github user franz1981 closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1691
---
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1691
@mtaylor Thanks! And good point: I need to do further tests with the
different DBMS first :+1:
---
Github user mtaylor commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1691
@franz1981 nice one. Did you test this against all our current supported
databases? Our CI currently doesn't cover DB tests.
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1692
---
-1. I'm not even going to add weight to this discussion by giving a
reason. I find the thread a ridiculous reaction to the vote email, in it
there are more inaccurate claims of the opinions of members of the
community.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
> I don't agree with the
I don't agree with the premise of this discussion at all. It seems to be
born out of a your replies to your self in an echo chamber.
What are the adverse consequences in providing a robust migration path for
5.x users to activemq 6 *within* the ActiveMQ project?
The preceding vote did not have an
To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
thread.
After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again. I continue to use my Red
Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
I
Thanks for starting this thread.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Several opinions have been expressed recently that the ActiveMQ website
> needs some attention and that Artemis should be made more prominent. I'd
> like to discuss some ideas to see what we could achieve on t
GitHub user andytaylor opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1692
NO-JIRA Adding extra assertions to test
to make sure queue name is in the error message
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github
+0. I manage just fine using filters and also use the dev list to conduct
PR discussions. I am not against the idea of using separate lists, if
others think it'd be useful.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> It seems to me that we should then move it... people who need ca
89 matches
Mail list logo
