Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Propose new sub-project activemq-extras
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
References: <030B2D21-DC83-4866-8506-8978E54A8079@me.com>
 <c155f39e-8919-a85d-7b8c-eb351d747235@gmail.com>
 <CAKF+bsqhTN51D0rK-cgwUrYKgEKKVADwent=DcMcMCcUYJiH-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA9ykMJDK5zMXdygQgcQnpXUdcdyJcM1F=TkT0QGCpCgdAnbbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKF+bsoNDT2ydtFhhZ9N2o-9KbUm_DKoX99ZoNATex-3NdEHZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53d8a9ee-8525-b475-d631-c14c47ed17ca@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:39:41 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKF+bsoNDT2ydtFhhZ9N2o-9KbUm_DKoX99ZoNATex-3NdEHZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
archived-at: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:39:48 -0000

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/