Rationalise 0-10 Transport Interface
Key: QPID-2811
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2811
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Java Broker, Java Client, Java Common
Update 0-10 connection configuration mechanism and properties
-
Key: QPID-2812
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2812
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Update current 0-10 socket connection to conform to new mechanism
-
Key: QPID-2813
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2813
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Create MINA InVM 0-10 Transport
---
Key: QPID-2814
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2814
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Java Broker, Java Client
Affects Versions:
Make InVM broker startup protocol independent
-
Key: QPID-2815
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2815
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Affects Versions: 0.7
Create TCP based 0-10 MINA transport
Key: QPID-2816
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2816
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Affects Versions: 0.7
Reporter: Andrew
Connection::close() may hang if broker is suspended
---
Key: QPID-2817
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2817
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
Components: C++ Client
Make Transport mechanisms into OSGi plugins
---
Key: QPID-2818
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2818
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Java Broker, Java Client
Add additional pluggable transport mechanisms
-
Key: QPID-2819
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2819
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: Java Broker, Java
Hi.
I'm currently looking at the 0-10 transport layer in more detail, and
want to add a (currently) MINA based VM mechanism to the existing
socket based one, and eventually I envisage pluggable OSGi modules
that implement Netty or Grizzly transports for both the client and the
broker, using any
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2817?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim resolved QPID-2817.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Connection::close() may hang if broker is suspended
On 08/20/2010 05:45 AM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
Hi.
I'm currently looking at the 0-10 transport layer in more detail, and
want to add a (currently) MINA based VM mechanism to the existing
socket based one, and eventually I envisage pluggable OSGi modules
that implement Netty or Grizzly transports
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
that relate to this?
This discussing needs to be had a bit more broadly so that all involved in
the client can contribute
Let me read through and comment on the individual JIRA's and then
maybe I can post a summary of my views here.
Rajith
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2798?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ted Ross resolved QPID-2798.
Assignee: Ted Ross
Fix Version/s: 0.7
Resolution: Fixed
C++ Messaging Client .NET binding
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2785?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ted Ross reassigned QPID-2785:
--
Assignee: Ted Ross
QpidTypes.pdb is not installed
--
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
that relate to this?
This discussing needs to be
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2785?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ted Ross resolved QPID-2785.
Fix Version/s: 0.7
Resolution: Fixed
QpidTypes.pdb is not installed
--
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2805?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ted Ross resolved QPID-2805.
Fix Version/s: 0.7
Resolution: Fixed
The windows resource version for qmfengine dll is hard coded
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900716#action_12900716
]
Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-2811:
Andrew,
Could you please be more specific
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2813?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900718#action_12900718
]
Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-2813:
Again, I would like to see what the new
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2818?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900722#action_12900722
]
Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-2818:
While I am not again making the transports
On 08/20/2010 10:15 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900726#action_12900726
]
Andrew Kennedy commented on QPID-2811:
--
This is pretty much what I'm doing, actually,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900726#action_12900726
]
Andrew Kennedy edited comment on QPID-2811 at 8/20/10 11:13 AM:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2818?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900725#action_12900725
]
Andrew Kennedy commented on QPID-2818:
--
Not explained very well. The modules that
First of all, I appreciate that there are several JIRA's opened
identifying the areas that Andrew is hoping to work.
I have gone through the JIRA's and made some comments.
In general I am quite happy about getting the transport code sorted out.
As mentioned in QPID-2811, I have made some
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900730#action_12900730
]
Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-2811:
-1 on removing the ability to load a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12900733#action_12900733
]
Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-2811:
The IoTransport class is not used in the
On 20 August 2010 16:16, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see the following in any future work carried out in the area.
1. Move the additional transport code out of common module. This is a
very important requirement for me as I would like to get rid of the
MINA
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2807?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim resolved QPID-2807.
--
Resolution: Fixed
More flexible acknowledgement
-
Key:
Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
that relate to this?
This
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Kennedy
andrewinternatio...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 August 2010 16:16, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see the following in any future work carried out in the area.
1. Move the additional transport code out of common module.
Also,
I should point out that the JIRA that mentions OSGi is purely in a
'Nice to have' category, and isn't something I expect to be working on
at any time in the near future... The important part of this is
consolidating and improving the transport layer. I expect that the
ability to add an OSGi
On 08/20/2010 11:04 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 08/20/2010 10:15 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the
35 matches
Mail list logo