activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Component/Plugin repository
Date Thu, 30 May 2019 04:49:45 GMT
What ever the agreed place is i would want to see the same rules being applied across the board
as noted this isnt the first time this has cropped up.

That said. If we go seperate repo route. We could move other bits like docker and operator
sub modules to sub repos there so they can have possibly a different lifecycle.

In particular comment to Prometheus plugin. Would it be worth while also providing some base
grafana dashboard people can just import to complement the metrics so end users have an even
quicker onboarding journey.

Get Outlook for Android

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:09 PM +0100, "Clebert Suconic" <>

We could have a separate repository for these plugins...

They could be part of our binary distribution (as being consumed), and
we could have special CLI options to activate them.

e.g.: ./artemis create /folder --plugin prometheus

The prometheus plugin would be only applied if such option was applied.

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 6:54 AM Christopher Shannon
> This sounds good to me, I think it would be good to have some way to keep a
> collection of plugins that is easy for people to find.  I guess they could
> either go into a new directory under the current Artemis build and each
> have their own sub module/ jar or they could live by themselves in a new
> sub project.
> I'm not really sure which approach would be best. Having new sub modules
> makes it easy to keep the plugins in sync with the broker but can bloat the
> release with things that may not belong in the main release (which is why
> we didn't want the Kafka Bridge to be included as part of the main release)
> Having a new sub project could be nice so people can optionally grab
> plugins only if they want them and this would allow the plugins could be
> updated and released on their own schedule.  The main downside I see with
> the sub project approach is trying to keep plugins in sync with the broker
> version. If we don't end up bundling the plugins with the broker itself
> then we need to figure out how to handle compatibility across releases.
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:50 PM Justin Bertram  wrote:
> > With the impending support for metrics plugins [1] as well as other
> > pluggable components which have been discussed in the past (e.g. Kafka
> > bridge [2] proposed by Mike Pearce) I think it would great to have an
> > official place where these things could be hosted and potentially included
> > as part of a broker release. Does anybody have any opinion on this?
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > [1]
> > [2]
> >

Clebert Suconic

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