I will go ahead and remove it...
I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
>
> I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
>
> I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
>
>
> Although keeping it means we
If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look at
things to fix that are breaking changes like the spec violations I pointed
out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1262 . The issue has
been around for at least 5 years when I opened the Jira. I didn't see a
We will have to find a way to comply with older clients though. We can
break the API but compatibility with older clients has always been
respected.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>
> If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look at
> things
Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same
arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as incentive
to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
- Lucas
On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM,
>
> How can we analyze usage?
Agree, that's an interesting question. On the top of my head, and without
knowing activemq.apache.org website infrastructure details, it would be
interesting to get overall traffic stats from the page
https://activemq.apache.org/rest . That at least will give us
Yeah that's the tricky part, I'm not sure how doable it is but figured if
it was ever going to be looked at then a major version change would be the
time to re-visit.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 1:03 PM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> We will have to find a way to comply with older clients though. We can
>
> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well?
Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning
of this thread?
As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two
cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should
If there is value on the rest from activemq 5. I would rather bring that
one to artemis instead of keeping the one we had.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:12 PM Tetreault, Lucas
wrote:
> > Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the
> beginning of this thread?
> No, probably not
> Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning
> of this thread?
No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is some
value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the
arguments in support of removing it are "I don't
