Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of chubrilo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: chubrilo@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGZ-RDJkK14cGaVktBhqVv4gC7HpM-iR0vpDusH3j6gyk3JDgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGZ-RDLtB-4qfTixECwHV9KJE0QdwOXo7V7eULKFJ=prM3DMZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB5yNnHDbaaaG8aJyXYS-aQn7c6AcfYEV_UwDKGF2sGWPN5gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGZ-RDJkK14cGaVktBhqVv4gC7HpM-iR0vpDusH3j6gyk3JDgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:06:28 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAGeh-pH-nRmKmxopkbyFbg+v-5j8z53Y5Op1S3XYdLOLPFGnag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Move message stores into separate modules?
From: Dejan Bosanac <dejan@nighttale.net>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The problem with activemq-client is that we usually need to support
embedded broker and that means all transports, stores and stuff. But
that doesn't mean we can't create activemq-client, that only supports
tcp transport which I guess 90% of folks use on the client side.


Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
dbosanac@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I think some of the transports could be moved into own modules as well.
>> - mqtt
>> - zeroconf
>>
>> And maybe the old kaha
>> Or the dot generator; from the view package (wonder who uses it, or if
>> its up to date)
>> And the ftp blob suppor as well. For example you cant use file without
>> having the ftp library on the classpath because they are in the same
>> package.
>> And I guess would be nice with spring xbean to be in own module as well.
>>
>> I guess I went a bit overboard with my "wish list" for AMQ core to be
>> trimmed down.
>>
>>
> totally aggree... and hell if we are going to be talking about wish lists,
> here's one that sounds a little crazy:  split activemq-core into a
> activemq-client and activemq-broker module.  But we probably need to first
> trim down all the fat before we can tackle that :)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Considering how large the activemq-core module is, I was wondering if you
>> > guys thought it might be beneficial to move the message stores into their
>> > own modules.  The leveldb store that is now integrated into the builds
>> > gives us an example of how it can be done while still providing tight
>> > integration /w XBean.  The one down side I can think of is that users who
>> > embed ActiveMQ would need to be aware of this change and update their
>> > builds accordingly to avoid breaking.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > **
>> >
>> > *Hiram Chirino*
>> >
>> > *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
>> >
>> > *hchirino@redhat.com <hchirino@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> *
>> >
>> > *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<
>> http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
>> > *
>> >
>> > *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> -----------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>> Email: cibsen@redhat.com
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Twitter: davsclaus
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> **
>
> *Hiram Chirino*
>
> *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
>
> *hchirino@redhat.com <hchirino@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com*
>
> *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
> *
>
> *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*