activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manuel Teira <mte...@tid.es>
Subject Re: About releases and bugs
Date Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:55:46 GMT
Rob Davies escribió:
> ActiveMQ is deployed and used in lots of different scenarios. Given 
> the breadth of the project, its very difficult for a few people to 
> cover everything - which is why we encourage folks to participate and 
> help us out ;)
And we are willing to help.
I know this is a complex and great project, and I assume the complexity 
that involves making it work perfectly for all the different scenarios 
and test cases. My post was not intended to reproach you for the bugs 
I've found, only to know the best way to proceed.

As you can see, I'm only asking a pair of questions about how to 
identify some changes we would need to backport to 4.1.1, if no more 
releases of the 4.1.x are expected. I want to get involved but it's 
difficult without a little feedback.

Best regards.

>
>
> On Jun 28, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>
>>
>>   I have to agree with most of this.  ActiveMQ is a buggy as hell.
>>
>>   In my testing, I'd have to say ActiveMQ 4.1.1 is completely 
>> unusable in production.  I'm told that it is used in production 
>> somewhere, but I suspect the usage is extremely narrow.  I'd like to 
>> know what usage actually works.  So if you are using ActiveMQ in 
>> production, how are you using it?
>>
>>   The show-stopping bugs in 4.1.1 are:
>>
>> - ActiveMQ loses unacked messages if a Stomp client disconnects 
>> without an explicit DISCONNECT (fixed in 4.2-something)
>>
>> - Stomp server does not support authentication.  It is completely 
>> wide-open.  And the default install has a Stomp listener running, so 
>> ActiveMQ is wide open if you have Stomp enabled (there is an 
>> unofficial patch, but I don't think this one will even be fixed in 5.0).
>>
>>
>>   A lot of the ActiveMQ components aren't merely buggy, but simply 
>> don't work.  Authentication and security should be mandatory, but the 
>> ActiveMQ.Agent feature doesn't work if auth is enabled.  Neither does 
>> the Web Console queueBrowser.  These components should be move to a 
>> sandbox.
>>
>>   There is pretty clear theme in the ActiveMQ development.  
>> Authentication and security are an afterthought.  Like seriously an 
>> afterthought, as in after the release is cut.
>>
>>   I'm amazed that ActiveMQ made it out of Apache incubation.
>>
>>
>> ----- "Manuel Teira" <mteira@tid.es> wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> I will try to outline briefly our situation as activemq users:
>>>
>>> We are embedding a 4.0.2 broker in our system. It is suffering some
>>> problems:
>>>  - Memory leaks.
>>>  - Locks trying to create or delete temporary queues (AMQ-1278). Still
>>>
>>> trying to reproduce it to verify this bug as fixed for us.
>>>  - Inactivity exceptions in running channels, perhaps related with the
>>>
>>> leaks and the GC monopolizing the CPU time.
>>>
>>> We are in the process of migrating to activemq 4.1.1. In our tests, as
>>>
>>> I've commented in a previous mail, we have found that:
>>>   - Memory leaks are still happening, at least while creating
>>> temporary
>>> queues and consumers (AMQ-1297)
>>>
>>> As this bug is a stopper for us, we tried, as it's usually
>>> recommended,
>>> with more recent snapshots, to see if the problems were fixed. So, we
>>>
>>> have found, using the more recent 5.0 snapshot:
>>>   - The memory leaks seems to be fixed.
>>>   - Already delete messages can be browsed using the JMX console
>>> (AMQ-1296)
>>>   - Messages are (hardly ever, but happens) duplicated or not
>>> delivered.
>>> (AMQ-1295)
>>>   - What seems random Inactivity exceptions in running and active
>>> channels. Perhaps related with AMQ-1146.
>>>
>>> So, my first question is about next releases. I think I've read
>>> somewere
>>> that there will be a 4.1.2 release. I suppose that generated from svn
>>>
>>> branches/activemq-4.1. However, a recent fix like the one for AMQ-1146
>>>
>>> (related with the inactivity IO exceptions), was not applied on this
>>> branch. So, what does this mean? That this bug won't be fixed in a
>>> future 4.1.x release? That there would be no more 4.1.x ?
>>>
>>> In the current situation, I think that the best release for us is
>>> 4.1.1,
>>> if we were able to fix the leakages (5.0 found bugs are stoppers for
>>> us). Any idea of what changes could have fixed that leakage?  I've
>>> also
>>> started to inspect the source code of the project. I  have to say
>>> that,
>>> at a first glance, it looks great, well-organized and very modular.
>>> But
>>> it's hard for a newcomer to understand the whole thing and to find out
>>>
>>> where the different pieces go. Is there any guide for developers that
>>>
>>> could ease the learning process ?
>>>
>>> Thanks, and best regards.
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message