activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Propose new sub-project activemq-extras
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:11:33 GMT
There would be possibly a few smaller projects


For now I can see at least 3.

Pool
Serialialization avro
Kafka-JMS Integration.


It would be beyond the scope of commons I think. Unless they are ok with
many small projects.


In the past I wanted to spinof the journal and libaio separately also.
Could we make this in this context of a new project ?

Iif we made it something like messaging-tools these could all fit in the
same sub project?.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:52 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

> We can definitely try an incubating project, if it makes sense for this to
> be an eventual TLP or subproject.  However, I was wondering if Apache
> Commons was a possible location for this project?  They tend to run with ad
> hoc smallish projects with a single PMC with enough oversight to cut valid
> releases.  Their projects are generally smaller, utility libraries and the
> core inners of projects.
>
> Let me know if you want to proceed with incubation.  We'd need to dig up
> some mentors for the project.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:48 PM Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06/09/2017 09:58 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > > Do we not already have precedent for something similar?  NMS is a
> > sub-project of ActiveMQ but includes support for non-ActiveMQ brokers.
> >
> > The NMS bits aren't quite the same as this as the initial goal of that
> > was to create a .NET based ActiveMQ client and it sort of morphed out
> > from there.  There are some similarities though and in those you can
> > kind of see the problem of putting a bunch of non-ActiveMQ type bits
> > under and ActiveMQ subproject.  The NMS project has never grown much of
> > a community of developers to support all the various client
> > implementations, there's many just two people who contribute.  As such
> > the project has mostly died, there hasn't been any releases in a long
> > time, an some of the implementations have never seen an official release
> > as there was nobody to manage it.  I felt for a long time like NMS would
> > have been better served as it's own project but my desire to work on
> > .NET code is quite low so I never pushed to move it to incubator but
> > really that's what should have happened in my mind.
> >
> > >
> > >> On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 06/09/2017 09:04 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > >>> Yip. That's the idea.  The connection pool was mentioned at the top
> > from
> > >>> Michael.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm just thinking if we could expand the scope a bit so we won't open
> > a new
> > >>> incubatorb project for just two libraries.
> > >> The initial scope as presented was
> > >>
> > >> {quote}
> > >> Some of these could be:
> > >> PooledConnectionFactory
> > >> Proposed custom serdes idea
> > >> Possible future kafka integrations
> > >> Etc.
> > >> {quote}
> > >>
> > >> Given you've got two concrete one sort of abstract and one etc it
> seems
> > there's some hints at there being more than just two libraries.  The
> thing
> > I'd prefer not to do is to create stuff that gets hidden in the noise of
> > the ActiveMQ project which is to create a great messaging broker where it
> > could be something that can stand on its own and have its own community
> etc.
> > >>
> > >> It seems that some actual thought about what you are trying to achieve
> > with these proposed bits will help sort out where they should live.  The
> > natural thing to do is create new ActiveMQ modules are subprojects but
> just
> > because it's easy to do that doesn't always mean its the best thing in
> the
> > long run.
> > >>
> > >>> Someone could argue that a messaging integration library should live
> on
> > >>> Camel as the Messaging Integration project.
> > >> Someone could argue that Camel already provides quite a bit of
> this....
> > >>
> > >>> But I won't discuss much this now.  I'm about to travel and won't be
> > able
> > >>> to answer emails next week.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:34 AM Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> The JMS connection Pool currently in ActiveMQ could live there
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 9 June 2017 at 04:52, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> As long as we can define a bigger scope.. otherwise wouldn't
be an
> > >>>>> overkill to start a project for this?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What's the name? commons-messaging?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> but there's already a commons project within apache...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I will be away for 2 weeks... Hope this to be sorted while
I'm away
> > ..
> > >>>>> .please???
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Just kidding though.. if it's not sorted.. I may revisit this
route
> > as
> > >>>>> well. for now @michael use your or a new github account until
we
> > >>>>> figure out where.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 06/08/2017 11:21 AM, Michael André Pearce wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Hi All
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I would like to discuss proposing a new sub project
, named
> > >>>>>>> "activemq-extras"
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There is some common / generic components not specific
to
> > activemq5 ,
> > >>>>>>> artemis, qpid jms that currently live within or without
some
> extras
> > >>>>> project
> > >>>>>>> would end up living in one.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Some of these could be:
> > >>>>>>> PooledConnectionFactory
> > >>>>>>> Proposed custom serdes idea
> > >>>>>>> Possible future kafka integrations
> > >>>>>>> Etc.
> > >>>>>> Given the scope outlined here as well as the aspiration
to make
> > this a
> > >>>>> cross
> > >>>>>> cutting set of features that work with clients that aren't
part of
> > >>>>> ActiveMQ
> > >>>>>> land but just JMS clients in general then I'd lean towards
a -1 of
> > >>>>> creating
> > >>>>>> a new subproject or building new modules into Artemis that
provide
> > >>>> these
> > >>>>>> features.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My suggestion would be to go the route of an incubator
project
> where
> > >>>> you
> > >>>>>> could work out the goals as aspirations of this new project
and
> > build a
> > >>>>>> community around that.  I think there would be more willingness
> from
> > >>>>> folks
> > >>>>>> that aren't ActiveMQ centric developers to contribute to
a project
> > that
> > >>>>>> lives on it's own given the current goal seems to be that
it's
> > >>>> something
> > >>>>>> that works with many different JMS client implementations,
most of
> > >>>> which
> > >>>>>> aren't ActiveMQ....
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Have a look at the incubator process (
> http://incubator.apache.org/)
> > I
> > >>>>> think
> > >>>>>> it lends itself to what's being proposed here more so than
just
> > >>>> spinning
> > >>>>> up
> > >>>>>> a subproject and starting to write some code.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The idea then is these "extras" are generic in fact
they can be
> > >>>>>>> released independently,
> > >>>>>>> don't affect the core products
> > >>>>>>> are generic meaning they can be re-used.
> > >>>>>>> Optional for end users to use.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Cheers
> > >>>>>>> Mike
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Tim Bish
> > >>>>>> twitter: @tabish121
> > >>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>
> > >> --
> > >> Tim Bish
> > >> twitter: @tabish121
> > >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> > twitter: @tabish121
> > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message