activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Propose new sub-project activemq-extras
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:31:22 GMT
Plenty of commons projects use git... https://github.com/apache?q=commons

John

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:

> One extra reason to not use commons:
>
>
> SVN :)
>
>
> How would we proceed?  Since this is a new project I don't think we need a
> vote here at activemq right?
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:19 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>

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