Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=htg+AqC8k8qExoRviyjtld+/DjljshiUztt3iZda9hnpGmJzC0CI6m+Aepn55QuPdLybvvSDqgnISiD2w2FgXNciJ0Vuy81n7JjX3DwiE0Cr/W9HAT/k0+heeMx86oRGOrpLoV4EzYsuVwl1xt5iQ88FhLKIQnFzyF2GCmIJ0d0=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
In-Reply-To: <9F31A0F2-45F3-4D65-B822-81B916041794@planet57.com>
References: <9E7839AC-B5C6-4DDD-A149-2B0F99962D5E@yahoo.com>
 <47E9ADBA.50803@earthlink.net> <47E9B7E1.3010809@apache.org>
 <8305D433-DCDD-44B8-A606-B4EC31B42721@yahoo.com>
 <9F31A0F2-45F3-4D65-B822-81B916041794@planet57.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <D49B3D45-63AD-4EDD-AB79-0C3A335BA4A5@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 4.1.2? 4.2? ActiveIO 3.1? releases
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:05:25 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On Mar 25, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> When is G gonna upgrade to AMQ 5?

Probably 2.2.  The main obstacle is that we are still trying to use  
gbeans to assemble the activemq broker.  This is pretty  
unsatisfactory.  However using the spring xml assembly has 2 problems:
- pulls in spring (not a biggie)
- kill the jms console support.  In fact AFAIK its pretty hard to  
write out a spring xml file after you've modified the components...

So if we ditched the jms console we could probably do it in a day or  
two.... however I don't have a clear idea how to have a console that  
deals with a spring based config.  Maybe some of dains jaxb magic  
will provide a solution soon.

We might be able to have a console-free activemq 5 plugin for 2.1.1  
if someone wants to take a few minutes and set it up.

thanks
david jencks

>
> --jason
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:28 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, I'd like to see those fixes in 2.1.1, but maybe an ActiveMQ  
>>> 4.1.2 release that still supports Java 1.4 for existing stand- 
>>> alone ActiveMQ users would be the best way to go for now.
>>
>> I didn't really consider moving to java 5 (which involves only  
>> replacing the backport-concurrent classes with the  
>> java.util.concurrent classes) until I picked up the activeio-3.1- 
>> SNAPSHOT fix which has already moved definitively to java 5.  So I  
>> have no problem calling the activemq version 4.2 but keeping a  
>> java 1.4 compatibility for activemq won't let you use it on java  
>> 1.4 due to the activeio changes.
>>
>> I should have thought of and mentioned this in the original post...
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> Geronimo is still using ActiveMQ 4 and I've applied patches for  
>>>>> or fixed a few bugs that are fairly important for getting MDBS  
>>>>> working reliably and fixing other problems.  So, I'd like to  
>>>>> get a release out of the 4.x branch for the upcoming Geronimo  
>>>>> 2.1.1 release.
>>>> I agree ... it would be great to get those included in 2.1.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've looked through the jiras for 4.x and applied the patches  
>>>>> for ones that I had a clue about.  If anyone else wants  
>>>>> something fixed in 4.x please speak up.
>>>>>
>>>>> ActiveIO trunk has a fix that we'd like (don't put non-strings  
>>>>> in system properties) so I'd like to release ActiveIO 3.1  
>>>>> also.  Since that requires java 5 I'd like to update activemq 4  
>>>>> to use java 5 also (I've tried and this is easy to do).  What's  
>>>>> the community feeling on this?  Is this a real no-no?  Would it  
>>>>> be better to have the version 4.2 and preserve 4.1.x for java  
>>>>> 1.4 work?
>>>> I'm sure others have more informed opinions on this than I do.   
>>>> I personally can't think of a reason that we should need another  
>>>> java 1.4 release but it certainly is nice to have the option ...  
>>>> so I think it would make sense to do the java 5 work in a 4.2  
>>>> branch.  Although I have to admit that I'm getting a little  
>>>> nervous at all the moving parts for 2.1.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to also update the poms to use more modern maven  
>>>>> release procedures as well.... I haven't looked into this much  
>>>>> yet and will post further when I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>
>