[HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

jbertram
I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who
wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.


Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

Martes Wigglesworth
Greetings Justin.

Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed?

We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.

By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting
and getting brokerURL.

Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch
and it required either a legacy named wrapper of ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
getBrokerURL.

I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to
create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring
access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods
which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)

Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?

I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who
> wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.
>
>
> Justin
>



--
Martes G Wigglesworth
Senior Middleware Consultant
Red Hat Consulting
Red Hat, Inc.
Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
Office Email: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

andytaylor
This probably warrants a separate thread

On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Greetings Justin.
>
> Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
> ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed?
>
> We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
> expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
>
> By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting
> and getting brokerURL.
>
> Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch
> and it required either a legacy named wrapper of ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
> or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
> getBrokerURL.
>
> I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to
> create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
> situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring
> access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods
> which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)
>
> Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?
>
> I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list.
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who
> > wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Martes G Wigglesworth
> Senior Middleware Consultant
> Red Hat Consulting
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
> Office Email: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

jbertram
I agree with Andy.  Can you create a new thread on [hidden email]?
I'll address your questions there.


Justin

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This probably warrants a separate thread
>
> On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings Justin.
> >
> > Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
> > ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed?
> >
> > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
> > expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
> >
> > By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting
> > and getting brokerURL.
> >
> > Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch
> > and it required either a legacy named wrapper of
> ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
> > or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
> > getBrokerURL.
> >
> > I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to
> > create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
> > situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring
> > access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods
> > which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)
> >
> > Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?
> >
> > I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who
> > > wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martes G Wigglesworth
> > Senior Middleware Consultant
> > Red Hat Consulting
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
> > Office Email: [hidden email]
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

Martes Wigglesworth
In reply to this post by andytaylor
Definitely.

I am re-posting now.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This probably warrants a separate thread
>
> On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings Justin.
> >
> > Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
> > ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed?
> >
> > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
> > expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
> >
> > By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting
> > and getting brokerURL.
> >
> > Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch
> > and it required either a legacy named wrapper of
> ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
> > or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
> > getBrokerURL.
> >
> > I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to
> > create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
> > situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring
> > access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods
> > which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)
> >
> > Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?
> >
> > I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who
> > > wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martes G Wigglesworth
> > Senior Middleware Consultant
> > Red Hat Consulting
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
> > Office Email: [hidden email]
> >
>



--
Martes G Wigglesworth
Senior Middleware Consultant
Red Hat Consulting
Red Hat, Inc.
Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
Office Email: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

MichaelAndrePearce
Hi Justin,

I’ve just put an issue in hawtio asking if they can tag in the next day or two, as I’d like to bump hawtio version before we tag if possible.

 essentially there are some bug fixes (escaped mbean url) that are fixed already in their master but they simply haven’t tagged. I would hope we know in next day if they’re able to do this.

But if we could hold off just for a day or so please, so we have the chance.

Cheers
Mike

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Oct 2017, at 16:30, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Definitely.
>
> I am re-posting now.
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> This probably warrants a separate thread
>>
>> On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings Justin.
>>>
>>> Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
>>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed?
>>>
>>> We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
>>> expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
>>>
>>> By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting
>>> and getting brokerURL.
>>>
>>> Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch
>>> and it required either a legacy named wrapper of
>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
>>> or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
>>> getBrokerURL.
>>>
>>> I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to
>>> create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
>>> situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring
>>> access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods
>>> which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)
>>>
>>> Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?
>>>
>>> I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who
>>>> wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martes G Wigglesworth
>>> Senior Middleware Consultant
>>> Red Hat Consulting
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
>>> Office Email: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martes G Wigglesworth
> Senior Middleware Consultant
> Red Hat Consulting
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
> Office Email: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

clebertsuconic
I am having an issue with auto created destinations. I am trying to get it
done by tomorrow.  If not will ask a delay.

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:58 AM Michael André Pearce <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> I’ve just put an issue in hawtio asking if they can tag in the next day or
> two, as I’d like to bump hawtio version before we tag if possible.
>
>  essentially there are some bug fixes (escaped mbean url) that are fixed
> already in their master but they simply haven’t tagged. I would hope we
> know in next day if they’re able to do this.
>
> But if we could hold off just for a day or so please, so we have the
> chance.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 23 Oct 2017, at 16:30, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Definitely.
> >
> > I am re-posting now.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This probably warrants a separate thread
> >>
> >> On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Greetings Justin.
> >>>
> >>> Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
> >>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were
> removed?
> >>>
> >>> We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
> >>> expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
> >>>
> >>> By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for
> setting
> >>> and getting brokerURL.
> >>>
> >>> Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a
> patch
> >>> and it required either a legacy named wrapper of
> >> ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
> >>> or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
> >>> getBrokerURL.
> >>>
> >>> I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted
> to
> >>> create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
> >>> situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring
> >>> access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor
> methods
> >>> which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)
> >>>
> >>> Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?
> >>>
> >>> I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who
> >>>> wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Justin
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Martes G Wigglesworth
> >>> Senior Middleware Consultant
> >>> Red Hat Consulting
> >>> Red Hat, Inc.
> >>> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
> >>> Office Email: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martes G Wigglesworth
> > Senior Middleware Consultant
> > Red Hat Consulting
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
> > Office Email: [hidden email]
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

clebertsuconic
I'm still dealing with some auto-create defaults.. I could figure out
everything I need but I'm still cleaning up my code before I can put a
PR. and one last case I need to investigate. Can we delay till monday
(or.. I hope not Tuesday.. but possibly)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am having an issue with auto created destinations. I am trying to get it
> done by tomorrow.  If not will ask a delay.
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:58 AM Michael André Pearce
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> I’ve just put an issue in hawtio asking if they can tag in the next day or
>> two, as I’d like to bump hawtio version before we tag if possible.
>>
>>  essentially there are some bug fixes (escaped mbean url) that are fixed
>> already in their master but they simply haven’t tagged. I would hope we know
>> in next day if they’re able to do this.
>>
>> But if we could hold off just for a day or so please, so we have the
>> chance.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 23 Oct 2017, at 16:30, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Definitely.
>> >
>> > I am re-posting now.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> This probably warrants a separate thread
>> >>
>> >> On 23 October 2017 at 16:11, Martes Wigglesworth <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Greetings Justin.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
>> >>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were
>> >>> removed?
>> >>>
>> >>> We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
>> >>> expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
>> >>>
>> >>> By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for
>> >>> setting
>> >>> and getting brokerURL.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a
>> >>> patch
>> >>> and it required either a legacy named wrapper of
>> >> ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
>> >>> or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
>> >>> getBrokerURL.
>> >>>
>> >>> I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted
>> >>> to
>> >>> create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
>> >>> situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles
>> >>> requiring
>> >>> access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor
>> >>> methods
>> >>> which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?
>> >>>
>> >>> I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody
>> >>>> who
>> >>>> wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Justin
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Martes G Wigglesworth
>> >>> Senior Middleware Consultant
>> >>> Red Hat Consulting
>> >>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> >>> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
>> >>> Office Email: [hidden email]
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Martes G Wigglesworth
>> > Senior Middleware Consultant
>> > Red Hat Consulting
>> > Red Hat, Inc.
>> > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
>> > Office Email: [hidden email]
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



--
Clebert Suconic