activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap
Date Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:40:57 GMT
The documentation does talk about those things.  Migration guide is just a
quick guide on how to migrate but it does not replace the documentation.

There was some good suggestions you made here as to tools to move
configuration automatically.   But that’s not a requirement to make any
progress. We won’t ever get anuwhere if we aim for perfection as there will
always be space for more.  Nothing in life is perfect.

Tools and features I think it’s orthogonal to the discussion about the

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:49 PM Tim Bain <> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2017 3:00 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <>
> wrote:
> > Another thought - having both brokers long term seems redundant as there
> is
> > a huge amount of overlap, and I believe the intent (please correct me if
> > this is wrong) is eventually to have Artemis superset all of the *key*
> > functionality from AMQ 5.x.
> I think all the features are covered at this point. The one exception
> is Retroactive Consumers.. however this could be done with browsers
> and paging.
> It still on my personal list of improvements I want to make. I could
> make it happen sooner with some demand.. So I don't think it blocks
> anything going forward.
> The other feature that has been brought a lot of times.. is virtual
> topics.. however with the address model in Artemis.. it's not needed..
> as virtual topic was a way to emulate a queue within a topic, which is
> pretty much what we have on the address model.
> >
> > In order to facilitate a move, users of AMQ 5.x are going to need a
> smooth
> > transition.  Note that I don't mean to say it has to be seamless, just
> that
> > it has to be smooth - easy enough to understand and execute.
> >
> > Let me pose some questions here that may help move this forward:
> >
> >   - Do we know what it takes to migrates customers from AMQ 5.x to
> Artemis?
> ^^ It's in good shape IMO already.
> That guide has lots of good information, but it explicitly punts on the
> question of how to migrate a cluster that has existing unconsumed messages.
> Does a migration guide for that subject already exist? If so, let's link to
> it; if not, I don't think we're ready yet.
> There are two possible ways to migrate when messages are pre-existing:
> either you take an outage and convert the messages store somehow, or you
> network the old and new brokers but have clients use only the new broker,
> and you configure the brokers so that all of the messages flow from the old
> broker to the new one without downtime. Note that the second approach won't
> migrate scheduled messages, so it might be necessary to use a hybrid
> approach depending on the use case. Are Artemis and ActiveMQ capable of
> being networked together to allow the second approach? I've always assumed
> that it could be done since Artemis supports OpenWire, but I've never heard
> anyone say it was possible. I think we'd want the migration guide to talk a
> bit about options for how to perform the actual operational migration, not
> just how to configure Artemis to make it behave similarly to ActiveMQ or
> HornetQ (though that's important too, and the guide does that well). Also,
> the guide should talk about what happens if a user wants to migrate when
> their broker contains more messages than will fit into Artemis's memory,
> since it's possible that some users might be in that situation. (Hopefully
> not many people, though!)
> Also, I don't see any discussion in the guide of SSL transports even though
> a number of other protocols (both network and application) are mentioned,
> so that looks like something else that should be added.
> >   - Do we have a comprehensive list of features that will remain
> supported?
> >   - Do we have a list of features that will not be retained?
> We had a few discussions in the past... there could be minor features
> still needed.. but it's getting better each day as users needed new
> functionality.
> The community aspect from the apache activemq community certainly
> improved the software.
> IMHO ActiveMQ Artemis is good enough that it can be improved as needed
> when missing points are found.. being an AMQ 5 missing  feature or
> anything else that users will need.
> I don't think this bit addresses the last two questions that Art raised,
> which are not "do we have everything we need and can we afford to wait for
> a fix if we discover that something's missing?" but rather "do we have a
> written list of which features we're keeping and which if any we're not so
> we can refer users to them?"
> > Hope this helps.  I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the long-term
> > vision here.  With that said, I do have some strong thoughts on
> > consolidation in the near-term and what's important in getting to a
> > long-term vision.
> Artemis has been under works for 3 years and something now...
> I am biased to speak about it as I work on it as part of my daily job
> on this codebase.. but I have seen it getting better each day.. with
> contributors from different companies.
> I wonder whether we should provide some simple utilities to help users
> migrate their config files. The guide makes it sound like they correspond
> closely, so it should be relatively easy to convert any parts that can be
> converted (automatically, or at least with user input) while also
> highlighting any configuration that requires manual attention (which gives
> us an opportunity to point the user towards documentation about the options
> and any trade-offs that might come with them). That could also let us build
> a JAAS config file for anyone who's using the Simple Authentication Plugin.
Clebert Suconic

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