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 18:19:01 GMT
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:16 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

> Well, in theory you could create an Apache Messaging Components project
> that was made up a variety of small projects like this.
>
> For Kafka-JMS, I would strongly encourage you to work with the Kafka
> Community to bring this to them first instead of creating a new project.


Sure.
That was just a rhetorical possibility.  Didn't mean to list exact projects
now. Just trying to determine  in what direction this could go.



>
> John
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:12 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

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