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 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:30:06 GMT
Ok,

So I was chatting with David Jencks on IRC yesterday, and G 1.1 will
stick with the AMQ 3.x branch for now since there seems to be a big
push to get G 1.1 out the door and introducing AMQ 4.x could add more
delays.  But due to a kernel change in 1.1, David is going to update
the gbean integration in AMQ 3.x and will will be cutting and using a
ActiveMQ 3.2.4.

I've finished porting the 1.2 (trunk) branch to ActiveMQ 4.x.  OpenEJB
still has a ActiveMQ 3.2.1 dependency due to WADI.  This is causing
the finally assembly to include both versions :(
Hey Jules, can WADI/ActiveCluster run with 4.x yet?

Please let me know if this broke anything.

Regards,
Hiram

On 3/26/06, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>


--
Regards,
Hiram

Mime
View raw message