Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <612629230.14759987.1479219382685.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
References: <CACHnxzyPrJAUKc9HDrby-oEeZ814p=EcAuKspF6O+RNAbOb=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <612629230.14759987.1479219382685.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:16:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKF+bsoEWSTersU3QhA=Ve=6s0MNPNch_YfKodje+zezyE+K3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:17:04 -0000

+1

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Shannon" <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:45:41 AM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> using it but discourage its use.
>
> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>
> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> master/slave setup.


-- 
Clebert Suconic