On 06/16/2012 06:56 PM, Qpid_user wrote:
Hi,
I have a requirement whereby I need to connect to the same AMQP broker,
however with different certificate aliases as each client uses different
certificate.
As ssl_cert_alias has to be specified in the connection string, does this
mean that it is
Hi Justin,
on the Java Broker we're doing a fair amount of work on a new
web-based management console which we want to have in for 0.18. We're
currently doing this work on a branch that's tracking trunk. We
*could* merge this to trunk now, but we prefer only to merge work
which is fully
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3914?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13395823#comment-13395823
]
Michal Zerola commented on QPID-3914:
-
OK. Which modification do you prefer then:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3914?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13395885#comment-13395885
]
Andrew Stitcher commented on QPID-3914:
---
I don't think you've explained why you need
So code reviews can continue as before.
Andrew
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3914?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13395898#comment-13395898
]
Michal Zerola commented on QPID-3914:
-
One of the reason of extending the client for
Hi All,
I've been working on providing a Java version of the Qpid API (QPID-4001)
For starters I have experimented on implementing this API over the
existing C++ client via SWIG/JNI until we get a pure Java
implementation based on Rob Godfrey's proton-j work.
There are some unique benefits
Hi Justin,
I would like to get the work I have done on the Qpid Java API
implementation over the c++ client into trunk for the 0.18 release.
This is a completely independent piece and would like to include as an
experimental feature for the 0.18 release.
I'm putting up the pieces for review as
Hi Rajith,
I know you've been working on getting a JMS client over messaging
API working, but this is the first I realized that the intention was
to add *another* Java client for 0.18.
the goal of JMS on top of messaging on top of proton makes a lot of
sense... I'm less convinced that JMS on top
Rob,
Let me clarify a few points. Perhaps my initial message wasn't clear.
(*) At this point there is no plan to add a JMS layer for 0.18
(*) The JMS layer would be a generic implementation over the messaging
API, and independent of any API implementation.
(*) When we do add a JMS layer
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-686?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim resolved QPID-686.
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
requeue and release should make messages available atomically
Rob,
I agree with your plan!
All though the work is independent and doesn't effect existing code,
it's indeed going to be a basis for future work and we want to get it
right.
So I will continue with the review process, but will not land the code
until everybody gets a chance to have a look at the
Hi, Steve. Reading QPID-3914, it seems there are some questions about the
patches' readiness. Do you think it's ready for inclusion? (If so,
please indicate in the jira's comments so point and counterpoint are in
one place.)
As to timing in general, I'd be willing to accept a patch for
Hi, Rob. I don't have any objections. Since I feel better if I ask at
least one question: does the console branch contain any important changes
to the broker model or its operation? If not, I consider it safe to
include up to beta.
Justin
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Rob Godfrey wrote:
Hi
Justin,
As agreed on the other thread, I agree with Rob that it's better to
hold on to the work I'm doing until we get more discussion/review.
Most of my work (barring the C++/JNI code) are going to be used for
the future client work and it's best we take more time to settle that
down.
Since we
On 18 June 2012 19:34, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, Rob. I don't have any objections. Since I feel better if I ask at
least one question: does the console branch contain any important changes to
the broker model or its operation? If not, I consider it safe to include up
to beta.
Alan Conway created QPID-4072:
-
Summary: HA use backup messages in failover.
Key: QPID-4072
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4072
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
17 matches
Mail list logo