[DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

James Carman
In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
big-ticket items that have been addressed are:

1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).

This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
ActiveMQ?

James
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
It wasn't clear to me if the format of the Configuration file is
really important or not. If I was the user i wouldn't mind.

Users will have to change the configs anyways... things like the
journal will have new settings... paging address... address-settings..
other things.. but if the XML taste is a big thing it could be
revisited.

I just wanted to clear that before we jumped ahead into writing code for it.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

dkulp
In reply to this post by James Carman


Couple things I think are important:

1) OSGi support - in particular the Karaf features and various commands and such for starting and configuring the brokers within Karaf.

2) Related to (1) - using the “normal” libraries that we would use within Karaf.   The particular one I’m thinking of is using CXF for the activemq-rest stuff instead of ActiveMQ.   There are issues with having two JAX-RS implementations within a runtime so I would think it’s important to be able to use the one more of us are using within Karaf.

I think those would be somewhat required for being able to have a ServiceMix that uses this.  


Dan



> On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:56 AM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

dguggi
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
@Configuration format file
I as a user wouldn't mind either

Features I'd also like to have in v6
- Message Destinations (afaik already...)
- Virtual Destination/Topics support
- and big +1 for "Auto-creation of destinations"


On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> It wasn't clear to me if the format of the Configuration file is
> really important or not. If I was the user i wouldn't mind.
>
> Users will have to change the configs anyways... things like the
> journal will have new settings... paging address... address-settings..
> other things.. but if the XML taste is a big thing it could be
> revisited.
>
> I just wanted to clear that before we jumped ahead into writing code for
> it.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> > of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> > the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> > transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> > together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> > big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
> >
> > 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> > 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
> >
> > This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> > What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> > ActiveMQ?
> >
> > James
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

dguggi
correction "Message Destinations" -> "Message Groups"

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> @Configuration format file
> I as a user wouldn't mind either
>
> Features I'd also like to have in v6
> - Message Destinations (afaik already...)
> - Virtual Destination/Topics support
> - and big +1 for "Auto-creation of destinations"
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It wasn't clear to me if the format of the Configuration file is
>> really important or not. If I was the user i wouldn't mind.
>>
>> Users will have to change the configs anyways... things like the
>> journal will have new settings... paging address... address-settings..
>> other things.. but if the XML taste is a big thing it could be
>> revisited.
>>
>> I just wanted to clear that before we jumped ahead into writing code for
>> it.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
>> > of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
>> > the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
>> > transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
>> > together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
>> > big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>> >
>> > 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
>> > 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>> >
>> > This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
>> > What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
>> > ActiveMQ?
>> >
>> > James
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

rajdavies
I don't think we will need virtual topics if we support JMS2



> On 15 Apr 2015, at 17:29, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> correction "Message Destinations" -> "Message Groups"
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> @Configuration format file
>> I as a user wouldn't mind either
>>
>> Features I'd also like to have in v6
>> - Message Destinations (afaik already...)
>> - Virtual Destination/Topics support
>> - and big +1 for "Auto-creation of destinations"
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> It wasn't clear to me if the format of the Configuration file is
>>> really important or not. If I was the user i wouldn't mind.
>>>
>>> Users will have to change the configs anyways... things like the
>>> journal will have new settings... paging address... address-settings..
>>> other things.. but if the XML taste is a big thing it could be
>>> revisited.
>>>
>>> I just wanted to clear that before we jumped ahead into writing code for
>>> it.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
>>>> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
>>>> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
>>>> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
>>>> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
>>>> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
>>>> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>>>>
>>>> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
>>>> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
>>>> ActiveMQ?
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

Krzysztof Sobkowiak
In reply to this post by dkulp
My big +1 Daniel. OSGi support is very important for us. Whether ActiveMQ {CodeName} will be a future ActiveMQ
mainstream or not user should have possibility to chose ActiveMQ {CodeName} as the broker in ServiceMix. But it requires
OSGi support.

Regards
Krzysztof

On 15.04.2015 18:23, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>
> Couple things I think are important:
>
> 1) OSGi support - in particular the Karaf features and various commands and such for starting and configuring the brokers within Karaf.
>
> 2) Related to (1) - using the “normal” libraries that we would use within Karaf.   The particular one I’m thinking of is using CXF for the activemq-rest stuff instead of ActiveMQ.   There are issues with having two JAX-RS implementations within a runtime so I would think it’s important to be able to use the one more of us are using within Karaf.
>
> I think those would be somewhat required for being able to have a ServiceMix that uses this.  
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>> On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:56 AM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
>> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
>> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
>> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
>> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
>> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>>
>> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
>> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>>
>> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
>> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
>> ActiveMQ?
>>
>> James

--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak

JEE & OSS Architect
Apache Software Foundation Member
Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer & PMC chair
Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini SSC <http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/en/>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

rajdavies
In reply to this post by James Carman
The equivalent of BrokerFilters for extension points - including using embedded Camel inside the Broker for flexible message routing



> On 15 Apr 2015, at 16:56, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by dguggi
We already have Message Groups.. .maybe someone could review it to
check if it's compatible.. (It should be BTW.. we used to compete)


for OSGI:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-93

Virtual Topics: again: we already have it... needs to check if it's
totally compatible (which should be)




AutoCreate: we already have it.. and I'm improving it this week.. so
it shouldn't be a problem.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> correction "Message Destinations" -> "Message Groups"
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> @Configuration format file
>> I as a user wouldn't mind either
>>
>> Features I'd also like to have in v6
>> - Message Destinations (afaik already...)
>> - Virtual Destination/Topics support
>> - and big +1 for "Auto-creation of destinations"
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> It wasn't clear to me if the format of the Configuration file is
>>> really important or not. If I was the user i wouldn't mind.
>>>
>>> Users will have to change the configs anyways... things like the
>>> journal will have new settings... paging address... address-settings..
>>> other things.. but if the XML taste is a big thing it could be
>>> revisited.
>>>
>>> I just wanted to clear that before we jumped ahead into writing code for
>>> it.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
>>> > of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
>>> > the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
>>> > transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
>>> > together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
>>> > big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>>> >
>>> > 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
>>> > 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>>> >
>>> > This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
>>> > What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
>>> > ActiveMQ?
>>> >
>>> > James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
well.. we have Hierarchical queues. I"m not sure if it's the same thing.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> We already have Message Groups.. .maybe someone could review it to
> check if it's compatible.. (It should be BTW.. we used to compete)
>
>
> for OSGI:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-93
>
> Virtual Topics: again: we already have it... needs to check if it's
> totally compatible (which should be)
>
>
>
>
> AutoCreate: we already have it.. and I'm improving it this week.. so
> it shouldn't be a problem.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> correction "Message Destinations" -> "Message Groups"
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @Configuration format file
>>> I as a user wouldn't mind either
>>>
>>> Features I'd also like to have in v6
>>> - Message Destinations (afaik already...)
>>> - Virtual Destination/Topics support
>>> - and big +1 for "Auto-creation of destinations"
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It wasn't clear to me if the format of the Configuration file is
>>>> really important or not. If I was the user i wouldn't mind.
>>>>
>>>> Users will have to change the configs anyways... things like the
>>>> journal will have new settings... paging address... address-settings..
>>>> other things.. but if the XML taste is a big thing it could be
>>>> revisited.
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to clear that before we jumped ahead into writing code for
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> > In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
>>>> > of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
>>>> > the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
>>>> > transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
>>>> > together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
>>>> > big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
>>>> > 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>>>> >
>>>> > This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
>>>> > What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
>>>> > ActiveMQ?
>>>> >
>>>> > James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

Brian D. Johnson
In reply to this post by dguggi
MUST HAVE
- JMS 2.0 support would be great (and I know is already included in the
code donation)
-- Virtual topics seem like they can be deprecated/discarded in favor of
shared durable subscriptions

NICE TO HAVE
- Support for existing legacy message stores.  A means to convert an
existing legacy store to the new store format would suffice.

- Routing (network connectors) between ActiveMQ {Code Name} and ActiveMQ
5.x brokers.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> correction "Message Destinations" -> "Message Groups"
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Daniel Guggi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > @Configuration format file
> > I as a user wouldn't mind either
> >
> > Features I'd also like to have in v6
> > - Message Destinations (afaik already...)
> > - Virtual Destination/Topics support
> > - and big +1 for "Auto-creation of destinations"
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> It wasn't clear to me if the format of the Configuration file is
> >> really important or not. If I was the user i wouldn't mind.
> >>
> >> Users will have to change the configs anyways... things like the
> >> journal will have new settings... paging address... address-settings..
> >> other things.. but if the XML taste is a big thing it could be
> >> revisited.
> >>
> >> I just wanted to clear that before we jumped ahead into writing code for
> >> it.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> >> > of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> >> > the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> >> > transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> >> > together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> >> > big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
> >> >
> >> > 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> >> > 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
> >> >
> >> > This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> >> > What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> >> > ActiveMQ?
> >> >
> >> > James
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

chirino
In reply to this post by James Carman
Support for storing broker data in a relational database.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, James Carman
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by Krzysztof Sobkowiak
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> My big +1 Daniel. OSGi support is very important for us.

+1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-93

I had identified before.. it needs to be done
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by Brian D. Johnson
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Brian D. Johnson
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> MUST HAVE
> - JMS 2.0 support would be great (and I know is already included in the
> code donation)

Yep.. done..


> -- Virtual topics seem like they can be deprecated/discarded in favor of
> shared durable subscriptions
>
> NICE TO HAVE
> - Support for existing legacy message stores.  A means to convert an
> existing legacy store to the new store format would suffice.


We have an importer / exporter at the {Code Name} where it's an
independent format. (The idea when implemented is that you could steal
data even from other providers when implemented).
Maybe someone could implement an exporter from activemq-5 and import
it at {codename}


>
> - Routing (network connectors) between ActiveMQ {Code Name} and ActiveMQ
> 5.x brokers.

We have openWire as a protocol on {code name}. It's the first
implementation.. and it would be nice people using it and reporting
bugs.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by chirino
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-27

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Support for storing broker data in a relational database.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, James Carman
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
>> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
>> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
>> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
>> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
>> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>>
>> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
>> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>>
>> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
>> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
>> ActiveMQ?
>>
>> James
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
>> NICE TO HAVE
>> - Support for existing legacy message stores.  A means to convert an
>> existing legacy store to the new store format would suffice.


This would need to be done as an exporter on ActiveMQ-5. is it
feasible? I'm still learning the codebase and I could look at it.. but
if anyone knows the answer....
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

Jim Gomes
In reply to this post by James Carman
Must have:

Support for the Timestamp plugin, or (better) built-in equivalent. My usage
requires the ability to override timestamps on submitted messages to
correct for out of synch clocks between clients and server.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 8:58 AM James Carman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

Marc Schöchlin-2
In reply to this post by James Carman
Hi,

my whishlist:
(with descending importance level)

- stability and resilience!!!!!!!
- simplified configuration, (it should be difficult to create unstable
configurations)
- easy and very stable out-of-the-box clustering without centralized
components
  (i.e. like leveldb but without running a dedicated zookeeper instance)
- a very good administration interface which operates on the
configuration files
- good operation system packages and integration
  (RPM, DEB and MSI packages )
- a good puppet module

Regards
Marc

Am 15.04.2015 um 17:56 schrieb James Carman:

> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James
--
GPG encryption available: 0x670DCBEC/pool.sks-keyservers.net
(https://www.256bit.org/keys/mschoechlin.pub.asc)



signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

Justin Bertram-2
James, is this thread meant to discuss:

  A) the existing features from ActiveMQ 5.x that ActiveMQ {CodeName} would need to implement really be considered the next generation of ActiveMQ
  B) the features that don't exist today in ActiveMQ that people would like to see in the next generation (i.e. in ActiveMQ {CodeName})
  C) both 'A' and 'B'

?


Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schöchlin" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:01:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

Hi,

my whishlist:
(with descending importance level)

- stability and resilience!!!!!!!
- simplified configuration, (it should be difficult to create unstable
configurations)
- easy and very stable out-of-the-box clustering without centralized
components
  (i.e. like leveldb but without running a dedicated zookeeper instance)
- a very good administration interface which operates on the
configuration files
- good operation system packages and integration
  (RPM, DEB and MSI packages )
- a good puppet module

Regards
Marc

Am 15.04.2015 um 17:56 schrieb James Carman:

> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James

--
GPG encryption available: 0x670DCBEC/pool.sks-keyservers.net
(https://www.256bit.org/keys/mschoechlin.pub.asc)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

clebertsuconic
I believe James meant A...

But lets extend it for C) .. both A and B.

for instance: There are tasks that won't necessarily involve coding
that would be nice to have: Like document and test AWS in
clustering... Docker, Kubernetes and a lot of cool stuff that's been
in trends. which would actually be a nice area for contributors...

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:

> James, is this thread meant to discuss:
>
>   A) the existing features from ActiveMQ 5.x that ActiveMQ {CodeName} would need to implement really be considered the next generation of ActiveMQ
>   B) the features that don't exist today in ActiveMQ that people would like to see in the next generation (i.e. in ActiveMQ {CodeName})
>   C) both 'A' and 'B'
>
> ?
>
>
> Justin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Schöchlin" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:01:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...
>
> Hi,
>
> my whishlist:
> (with descending importance level)
>
> - stability and resilience!!!!!!!
> - simplified configuration, (it should be difficult to create unstable
> configurations)
> - easy and very stable out-of-the-box clustering without centralized
> components
>   (i.e. like leveldb but without running a dedicated zookeeper instance)
> - a very good administration interface which operates on the
> configuration files
> - good operation system packages and integration
>   (RPM, DEB and MSI packages )
> - a good puppet module
>
> Regards
> Marc
>
> Am 15.04.2015 um 17:56 schrieb James Carman:
>> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
>> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
>> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
>> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
>> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
>> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>>
>> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
>> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>>
>> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
>> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
>> ActiveMQ?
>>
>> James
>
> --
> GPG encryption available: 0x670DCBEC/pool.sks-keyservers.net
> (https://www.256bit.org/keys/mschoechlin.pub.asc)
>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
12