Re: [C++ Broker][HA Queue Replication]

Hi all Gordon, thx. Regarding your last question "What are you aiming to achieve with the federation? Is it scaling beyond the capacity of a single broker?" I would say, "at term, yes" In fact, I have two main use-cases. 1/ the first one must be reliable. In that case, persistence and

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Qpid Proton 0.11.1

There were 4 binding +1 votes, and no other votes received. The vote has passed. I will add the archives to the dist release repo, release the maven staging repo, and create the final tag shortly. The website will be updated later after the artifacts have had time to sync to the mirrors and maven

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.7.0

+1 I run my tests against Qpid C++ broker 0.34 and Red Hat MRG-M 3.0 & 3.2. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have put together a first spin for a 0.7.0 Qpid JMS client release, > please test it and vote accordingly. > > The

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.7.0

On 18 December 2015 at 16:55, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have put together a first spin for a 0.7.0 Qpid JMS client release, > please test it and vote accordingly. > > The source and binary archives can be grabbed from here: >

Re: Unable to send message with Proton client

Hi Mark, Proton started initially as a pure protocol engine that would be used by other components such as brokers/clients/routers/other to support AMQP 1.0, rather than itself being as any type of direct client etc. That is how proton-j continues to see most of its usage that I am familiar with,

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.7.0

+1 Checked the signatures and checksums Checked that license and notice files were included. Built the source archive and ran tests. Used the staged artifacts to run the ActiveMQ AMQP JMS tests. Ran the examples from the source build against ActiveMQ On 12/18/2015 11:55 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid JMS client 0.7.0

+1 - Ran the Joram JMS tests against the Java Broker (trunk) - Repeated the test that originally showed QPIDJMS-139 (test itself described on QPID-6863) No issues encountered. On 18 December 2015 at 18:45, Timothy Bish wrote: > +1 > > Checked the signatures and checksums