You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2006/03/26 18:34:30 UTC
Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
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
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <hi...@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 <da...@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 <da...@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
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <da...@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 <da...@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
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
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 <da...@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
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Hi David,
I've started to update my geronimo 1.1 working copy to use amq 4. 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?
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/26/06, David Jencks <da...@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
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
How about we try get the latest 4.x trunk working in Geronimo 1.1?
There's heaps of bug fixes as well as some groovy new features in
there; we should make the swich at some point, so now seems as good a
time as any.
I think the only issue might be that the rest/ajax support (whichi is
optional) depends on Jetty 6.x; but the default configuration would
just be for tcp/ip using openwire/stomp.
James
On 3/26/06, David Jencks <da...@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
>
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Indeed.
On 3/28/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me; particulary as ActiveMQ shouldn't really
> chance a whole lot from here on in in the core broker/connector area;
> whereas the kernel might change a bit more between 1.0-1.1-1.2-2.x etc
>
> James
>
> On 3/27/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > I've been thinking that it may be best to move the ActiveMQ bean
> > modules into the Geronimo source tree. ActiveMQ actually does not
> > ship the gbean modules in it's binary distro, so I think it would make
> > sense to have them actually be maintained inside Geronimo. The upside
> > to this is if Geronimo wants to make kernel level changes it would be
> > easier to apply them to to all the gbeans inside it's source tree.
> > Any thoughts or ideas?
> >
> > On 3/27/06, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > We also have the following JIRA issues opened that need changes in
> > > ActiveMQ to fix -
> > > G1451 - A new TCP listener for ActiveMQ is not persisting across server
> > > starups
> > > G1752 - Changing activeMQ port via console doesn't stick
> > >
> > >
> > > -Donald
> > >
> > > David Jencks 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
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Sounds reasonable to me; particulary as ActiveMQ shouldn't really
chance a whole lot from here on in in the core broker/connector area;
whereas the kernel might change a bit more between 1.0-1.1-1.2-2.x etc
James
On 3/27/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking that it may be best to move the ActiveMQ bean
> modules into the Geronimo source tree. ActiveMQ actually does not
> ship the gbean modules in it's binary distro, so I think it would make
> sense to have them actually be maintained inside Geronimo. The upside
> to this is if Geronimo wants to make kernel level changes it would be
> easier to apply them to to all the gbeans inside it's source tree.
> Any thoughts or ideas?
>
> On 3/27/06, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > We also have the following JIRA issues opened that need changes in
> > ActiveMQ to fix -
> > G1451 - A new TCP listener for ActiveMQ is not persisting across server
> > starups
> > G1752 - Changing activeMQ port via console doesn't stick
> >
> >
> > -Donald
> >
> > David Jencks 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
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I've been thinking that it may be best to move the ActiveMQ bean
modules into the Geronimo source tree. ActiveMQ actually does not
ship the gbean modules in it's binary distro, so I think it would make
sense to have them actually be maintained inside Geronimo. The upside
to this is if Geronimo wants to make kernel level changes it would be
easier to apply them to to all the gbeans inside it's source tree.
Any thoughts or ideas?
On 3/27/06, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We also have the following JIRA issues opened that need changes in
> ActiveMQ to fix -
> G1451 - A new TCP listener for ActiveMQ is not persisting across server
> starups
> G1752 - Changing activeMQ port via console doesn't stick
>
>
> -Donald
>
> David Jencks 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
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com>.
We also have the following JIRA issues opened that need changes in
ActiveMQ to fix -
G1451 - A new TCP listener for ActiveMQ is not persisting across server
starups
G1752 - Changing activeMQ port via console doesn't stick
-Donald
David Jencks 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
>
>
>
Re: Which version of AMQ for geronimo 1.1?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Hi David,
I've started to update my geronimo 1.1 working copy to use amq 4. 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?
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/26/06, David Jencks <da...@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