[DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

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

[DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

clebertsuconic
There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
don't really think anyone will be using it:

- aerogear:
    * It's not working
    * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
    * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around. i.e.
Aerogear consuming artemis
- vertx
   * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious is
through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
   * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.


I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
(which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should be
proper fixed if anyone is using it.


Any objections?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

bennetelli
no objections.

> On 28 Oct 2016, at 06:56, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
> don't really think anyone will be using it:
>
> - aerogear:
>    * It's not working
>    * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
>    * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around. i.e.
> Aerogear consuming artemis
> - vertx
>   * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious is
> through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
> Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
>   * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
>
>
> I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
> (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
> issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
> if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should be
> proper fixed if anyone is using it.
>
>
> Any objections?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

Claus Ibsen
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
+1

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
> don't really think anyone will be using it:
>
> - aerogear:
>     * It's not working
>     * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
>     * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around. i.e.
> Aerogear consuming artemis
> - vertx
>    * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious is
> through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
> Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
>    * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
>
>
> I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
> (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
> issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
> if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should be
> proper fixed if anyone is using it.
>
>
> Any objections?



--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

jbonofre
+1

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 28, 2016, 09:19, at 09:19, Claus Ibsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>+1
>
>On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Clebert Suconic
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>> There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
>> don't really think anyone will be using it:
>>
>> - aerogear:
>>     * It's not working
>>     * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
>>     * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around.
>i.e.
>> Aerogear consuming artemis
>> - vertx
>>    * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious
>is
>> through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
>> Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
>>    * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
>>
>>
>> I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
>> (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
>> issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
>> if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should
>be
>> proper fixed if anyone is using it.
>>
>>
>> Any objections?
>
>
>
>--
>Claus Ibsen
>-----------------
>http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

christopher.l.shannon
+1, no reason to keep broken stuff around.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> ⁣​
>
> On Oct 28, 2016, 09:19, at 09:19, Claus Ibsen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >+1
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Clebert Suconic
> ><[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
> >> don't really think anyone will be using it:
> >>
> >> - aerogear:
> >>     * It's not working
> >>     * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
> >>     * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around.
> >i.e.
> >> Aerogear consuming artemis
> >> - vertx
> >>    * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious
> >is
> >> through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
> >> Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
> >>    * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
> >>
> >>
> >> I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
> >> (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
> >> issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
> >> if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should
> >be
> >> proper fixed if anyone is using it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Any objections?
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Claus Ibsen
> >-----------------
> >http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> >Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

Robbie Gemmell
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
On 28 October 2016 at 05:56, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
> don't really think anyone will be using it:
>
> - aerogear:
>     * It's not working
>     * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
>     * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around. i.e.
> Aerogear consuming artemis
> - vertx
>    * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious is
> through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
> Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
>    * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
>
>
> I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
> (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
> issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
> if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should be
> proper fixed if anyone is using it.
>
>
> Any objections?

Seems like a good idea to me.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

nigro_franz
Good idea!

Il ven 28 ott 2016, 15:37 Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> ha
scritto:

> On 28 October 2016 at 05:56, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
> > don't really think anyone will be using it:
> >
> > - aerogear:
> >     * It's not working
> >     * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
> >     * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around. i.e.
> > Aerogear consuming artemis
> > - vertx
> >    * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious is
> > through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
> > Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
> >    * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
> >
> >
> > I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
> > (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
> > issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
> > if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should be
> > proper fixed if anyone is using it.
> >
> >
> > Any objections?
>
> Seems like a good idea to me.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

Martyn Taylor
The AeroGear Connector Service is a useful component, if it's not working
then let's fix it up.  It's a convenient way for users to integrate
traditional messaging systems with mobile applications.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Francesco Nigro <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Good idea!
>
> Il ven 28 ott 2016, 15:37 Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
>
> > On 28 October 2016 at 05:56, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
> > > don't really think anyone will be using it:
> > >
> > > - aerogear:
> > >     * It's not working
> > >     * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
> > >     * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around. i.e.
> > > Aerogear consuming artemis
> > > - vertx
> > >    * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious is
> > > through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
> > > Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
> > >    * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
> > >
> > >
> > > I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
> > > (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
> > > issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
> > > if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should be
> > > proper fixed if anyone is using it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Any objections?
> >
> > Seems like a good idea to me.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] removing aerogear / vertx module

clebertsuconic
Ok, I will remove only vertx for now then.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The AeroGear Connector Service is a useful component, if it's not working
> then let's fix it up.  It's a convenient way for users to integrate
> traditional messaging systems with mobile applications.
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Francesco Nigro <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Good idea!
>>
>> Il ven 28 ott 2016, 15:37 Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> > On 28 October 2016 at 05:56, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > There are a few modules on Artemis that I feel are a bit defunct. I
>> > > don't really think anyone will be using it:
>> > >
>> > > - aerogear:
>> > >     * It's not working
>> > >     * I am not sure about the status of Aerogear
>> > >     * It's probably better to be integrated the other way around. i.e.
>> > > Aerogear consuming artemis
>> > > - vertx
>> > >    * There are other ways to integrate with vertx. the most obvious is
>> > > through the AMQP bridge. also you could create VertX components in
>> > > Vertx which is more component oriented than a message broker.
>> > >    * It's broken as well, even using a very old version.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I will remove these two modules and its tests before the release
>> > > (which I'm still trying to get it out asap.. I just keep looking for
>> > > issues, given my OCD level :) ).. we can always revert from git later
>> > > if we get any real users (I really doubt that).. and then it should be
>> > > proper fixed if anyone is using it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Any objections?
>> >
>> > Seems like a good idea to me.
>> >
>>



--
Clebert Suconic