geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Date Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:53:28 GMT
Wow.. I'm a bit confused with all the version stuff then... I've been
working off trunk which I assumed was 1.1.   I'll attach a patch of
what I have so far against trunk.  You'll see that I've had to update
a bunch of project.xml files in a bunch of modules.  So I think we
need to branch the whole trunk.

If you want, go ahead and create the branch and I'll apply my patch.

Also seem the console was providing some DLQ management features.  But
the interfaces into this stuff in AMQ 4.x has changed substantially. 
I think we will need to disable that portlet until it can be properly
ported.


On 3/26/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I've started to update my geronimo 1.1 working copy to use amq 4.
>
> Are you sure you mean g 1.1?  That is the still broken branch only
> Dain and I have been working on.  g trunk is 1.2 now.
> > If
> > your interested in helping port it over, then yeah I think a branch
> > would be a good idea.
> >
> > What should the branch name be?
>
> Well, we called the g. branch configid for a while, then changed it
> to 1.1   So I think either G_1.1 or configId would be reasonable.
>
> We might only need to branch the gbeans rather than all of AMQ, what
> do you think?
>
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > On 3/26/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Geronimo 1.1 needs some changes in the activemq gbeans in order for
> >> activemq to be able to start and be managed by the console.  Which
> >> version(s) should I make the modifications in?  Should I make an AMQ
> >> branch for this?
> >>
> >> The problems I've identified so far are:
> >>
> >> - The management helper gbean needs extensive modifications to use
> >> AbstractNames rather than ObjectNames.
> >>
> >> - The JDBCPersistenceAdapterGBean uses an AMQ interface in its
> >> reference to dataSource: this no longer works as we now check that a
> >> target gbean declares the interface you ask for in a reference.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
>
>


--
Regards,
Hiram

Mime
View raw message