activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martes Wigglesworth <mwigg...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Inquiry about how ActiveMQ has no support for settings and getters which existed in Legacy AMQ-5.x
Date Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:11:16 GMT
Thanks for the succinct response, Justin.

This basically answers my question completely.

The implementation has made some assumptions that are not
forward-compatible.

Thanks so much for the quick response.


On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.org>
wrote:

> >  the artemis implementation of ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the
> setters and getters were removed?
>
> To be clear, the Artemis client implementation is 100% independent of the
> 5.x client implementation so, technically speaking, no setters or getters
> were removed.  Also, it's worth noting that while Artemis has good feature
> parity with the 5.x broker there has been no concerted effort toward API
> compatibility between client implementations (of course excluding standards
> like JMS, JNDI, etc.).
>
>
> > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
> expecting
> AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
>
> I'm not sure this is a valid expectation.  As mentioned previously the two
> client implementations are separate and no guarantee of API compatibility
> has been advertised.  The URL is really an implementation detail, and
> applications that rely on implementation details open themselves up to
> incompatibilities when moving between implementations.  In the specific
> case of API compatibility I would strongly encourage users towards
> standards wherever possible in lieu of relying on implementation details.
>
> That said, if there's a simple change that would bring value to the Artemis
> client implementation I think it would be accepted.
>
>
> > Also, would this be more of a "user-list" post?
>
> Since this concerns the development of the broker (e.g. potential PR, etc.)
> the dev list is fine.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Martes Wigglesworth <mwiggles@redhat.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings Justin.
> >
> > Do you have any time to chat about the artemis implementation of
> > ActiveMQConnectionFactory, and why the setters and getters were removed?
> >
> > We are working on integration of AMQ with bigdata tools and they are
> > expecting AMQ-Artemis to behave as old AMQConnectionFactory used to.
> >
> > By this I am referencing the omission of an exposed interface for setting
> > and getting brokerURL.
> >
> > Any insight on this topic would be appreciated, since I looked at a patch
> > and it required either a legacy named wrapper of
> ActiveMQConnectionFactory,
> > or ActiveMQJMSConnectionFactory, to re-insert the setBrokerURL and
> > getBrokerURL.
> >
> > I figured this would get a huge "heck-no" from the team if I attempted to
> > create an issue, and submit a pull request, so I wanted to verify the
> > situation before moving forward.  (This is due to NiagraFiles requiring
> > access to the brokerURL property, because of the assumed accessor methods
> > which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.)
> >
> > Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH?
> >
> > I was reading through the user-list just now, and someone made reference
> to
> > the AMP specification, and how certain property are immutable due to this
> > specification.
> >
> > Is that possibly the source for the change in api?
> >
> > I am new to AMQ-Artemis source, so I may have missed some documented
> reason
> > for this change, and would appreciate any info, including a "RTFM" link.
> >
> > Also, would this be more of a "user-list" post?
> >
>



-- 
Martes G Wigglesworth
Senior Middleware Consultant
Red Hat Consulting
Red Hat, Inc.
Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084
Office Email: mwiggles@redhat.com

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