activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From New User <es...@indoles.com>
Subject Re: About releases and bugs
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:45:54 GMT

James et. al.

Here's my experience with activemq.

I have a need to transfer large files over a WAN (involves multiple
machines, and at times unreliable network hops).

There files are generated at pretty much random intervals. I started around
when 4.0 was being moved into the apache world.

So, the set up ended up consisting of 4 machines:

Producer --> BrokerA --> <<WAN>> --> BrokerA --> Consumer

Broker A and B with a failover connection between them.

Invariably when the WAN has burbs of some sort either of the brokers would
get stuck. Sometimes restarting one or both brokers would fix the problem.
Sometimes restart would result in lost messages. Other times only removing
the derby storage as part of restart would work (resulting in lots of lost
messages).

So, I tried all kinds of things, like writing a client that forwards the
messages (consumes from one broker and produces the messages on the other),
this too would have to use a failover connection. Same problems would
persist.

As new versions of software came out, I would upgrade and never get rid of
the problem. (The last I tried was some sort of 4.2 rc, it's been a while).
Lots of the 'fixed bugs' listed sounded like they would fix my problem, but
they never did.

So, I gave up (ended up writing a couple of erlang programs in about 4 hours
to accomplish the task).

Now I understand the nature of open source software, have contributed to my
share of them, so please don't say 'why didn't you just fix the code,
produce stack traces, etc.' Simple answer is that I didn't have time, and
when a problem occured (once in every 24 to 48 hours) it was most important
to fight the fire (I understand the stupidity of that also).

So, why am I writing this...

Because I think the approach taken to bug fixing in activemq is wrong.
Basically bug are fixed against the trunk. They should be fixed 1st against
a 'supported version' if the bug is applicable to that version.

That is if a bug exists in 4.1.1, it should be fixed in the 4.1 branch 1st,
then merged to the trunk.

In my world I can not be chasing the latest greatest all the time and take
the risk of new bugs being introduced due to features under development.

So, I kind of wish that activemq'd have a bug fixing policy along the lines
above, and it would be strictly adhered to. This would, of course, mean that
there'd have to be one (or maybe two) 'supported versions' at any given
time.

Thanks for listening,

Esa


On 6/28/07, Tom Samplonius <tom@samplonius.org> wrote:
>
>   I have to agree with most of this.  ActiveMQ is a buggy as hell.

Thats a bit of an exaggeration & a comment thats hardly likely to get
the volunteers on the list to help you solve your particular issues.


-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/About-releases-and-bugs-tf3987476s2354.html#a11363047
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message