activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jamie G." <jamie.goody...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:36:45 GMT
I don't think AMQ 5.x is dead, plenty of people maintaining it :)

Cheers,
Jamie

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com> wrote:
> Why call it ActiveMQ 6.0 and not HornetMQ (or another name)?
>
> Is hornetq a fork of ActiveMQ ?
>
> We’re still having issues with ActiveMQ and the idea of migrating to
> another projects sounds like a nightmare for us.
>
> There are people using the current code base of ActiveMQ and this means
> that 5.x is dead.
>
> Unless I’m missing something.  Which I hope I am :)
>
> I’ll try to do a lot more reading on the subject and ActiveMQ 6.0.. maybe
> it will solve all my problems :)
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> as we said on the vote thread, activemq6 is This is a first release of
>> the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP, STOMP, CORE and
>> OPENWIRE.
>>
>> It's a new dev effort and it's from a different repo:
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/
>>
>> So I don't think the issue you mentioned would affect the new repo /
>> codebase.
>>
>> We are being quite active on moving forward with this codebase and we
>> are striving and working hard here. So any issues please let us know.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com> wrote:
>> > Yes.  Sort of.  There was a regression for persistent=false which breaks
>> it
>> > for advisories.
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665
>> >
>> > I was *hoping* it fixed the issue.
>> >
>> > If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find
>> where
>> > it broke.
>> >
>> > One other problem I ran into:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/activemq
>> >
>> > Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.)
>> >
>> > master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches..
>> >
>> > The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed.  So I was
>> > trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been
>> > renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P
>> >
>> > We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install.  Right now
>> > it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages.  5.10.x has had a
>> number
>> > of issues for us.  I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged
>> for
>> > 6.0.0.  The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have
>> > been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty
>> > major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues.
>> >
>> > I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire queue
>> > serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very
>> > large with nothing being served.  I was going to try to get on 5.11 or
>> > 6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories.
>> >
>> > I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw.  But I need to
>> figure
>> > out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into
>> > purgatory.  Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to
>> avoid
>> > having my work left behind.
>> >
>> > Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help?
>> >
>> > Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no,
>> we’re
>> > not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation!
>> :)
>> >
>> > If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the graveyard
>> > and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull
>> > request for that as well.
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target
>> >> compilation still java 1.7
>> >>
>> >> We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped
>> >> back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but
>> >> since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending
>> >> java8.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up
>> >> till recently.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to
>> >> use java7 on the binaries at this point.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it...
>> >> we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features
are
>> >> > actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
>> >> > reasonable requirement at this point.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> >> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> >> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> >> > … or check out my Google+ profile
>> >> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> >> > <http://spinn3r.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Clebert Suconic
>> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> > … or check out my Google+ profile
>> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> > <http://spinn3r.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> … or check out my Google+ profile
> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> <http://spinn3r.com>

Mime
View raw message