You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Rajika Kumarasiri <ra...@wso2.com> on 2008/10/20 11:32:16 UTC
0-10 spec. support in Java broker
hello devs,
I'd like to know whether qpid community plans to support 0-10
specification version for Qpid/Java broker with upcoming M4 release ?
Thanks!
-Rajika
--
http://wso2.org
http://llvm.org
http://www.osdev.org
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Rajika Kumarasiri <ra...@wso2.com>.
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 07:08 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:00 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> >> Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:52 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 2008/10/20 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Has anybody started on that? I know there's been some work done on
> >>>>> making it easier to do with the broker. Are there any design docs?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> My refactoring of the broker took into account some of the things we
> >>>> will encounter in 0-10, such as changes to flow control and a distinct
> >>>> "acquired" state for message entries.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the biggest hurdle will be to re-engineer the broker to handle
> >>>> the 0-8 and 0-10 stuff without making it such a dogs breakfast as the
> >>>> client. I really don't want to see the same level of separateness in
> >>>> the broker if at all possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I would start by getting the 0-10 style I/O stuff into the
> >>>> broker and removing the remaining MINA-isms ... We can throw in the
> >>>> 0-10 stack but then need to get some sort of model of Channel/Session
> >>>> that fits comfortably in the broker and works with the 0-8/9 and 0-10
> >>>> dispatch mechanisms.
> >>>>
> >>> So the issues that are reported against Java broker need to fix in this
> >>> process, right ?
> >>>
> >>> -Rajika
> >>>
> >> Best is to hit Rob and Rafi up if you want to help out with the 0-10
> >> broker work. They have spent
> >> the most time looking into how best to do it as far as I know. I am sure
> >> they will be glad for any
> >> extra help they can get.
> > Yes, I would like to contribute to the Qpid project and get Qpid java
> > broker 0-10 specification support. Any guide on the JIRAs which should
> > be get fixed for 0-10 specification support of Java broker would be
> > highly appreciated. Thanks!
>
> I can't point you to any specific JIRAs at the moment. Right now I'm
> working on getting my coding done for the M4 freeze, but as soon as
> that's over I think we should put our heads together and work out a plan
> for getting the java broker to 0-10. Hopefully then we'd be able to
> point you in a more useful direction.
>
> --Rafael
Yes,sure. Thanks. In the mean time I'll look into qpid broker code base. Thanks again.
-Rajika
--
http://wso2.org
http://llvm.org
http://www.osdev.org
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:00 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>> Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:52 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2008/10/20 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Has anybody started on that? I know there's been some work done on
>>>>> making it easier to do with the broker. Are there any design docs?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> My refactoring of the broker took into account some of the things we
>>>> will encounter in 0-10, such as changes to flow control and a distinct
>>>> "acquired" state for message entries.
>>>>
>>>> I think the biggest hurdle will be to re-engineer the broker to handle
>>>> the 0-8 and 0-10 stuff without making it such a dogs breakfast as the
>>>> client. I really don't want to see the same level of separateness in
>>>> the broker if at all possible.
>>>>
>>>> I think I would start by getting the 0-10 style I/O stuff into the
>>>> broker and removing the remaining MINA-isms ... We can throw in the
>>>> 0-10 stack but then need to get some sort of model of Channel/Session
>>>> that fits comfortably in the broker and works with the 0-8/9 and 0-10
>>>> dispatch mechanisms.
>>>>
>>> So the issues that are reported against Java broker need to fix in this
>>> process, right ?
>>>
>>> -Rajika
>>>
>> Best is to hit Rob and Rafi up if you want to help out with the 0-10
>> broker work. They have spent
>> the most time looking into how best to do it as far as I know. I am sure
>> they will be glad for any
>> extra help they can get.
> Yes, I would like to contribute to the Qpid project and get Qpid java
> broker 0-10 specification support. Any guide on the JIRAs which should
> be get fixed for 0-10 specification support of Java broker would be
> highly appreciated. Thanks!
I can't point you to any specific JIRAs at the moment. Right now I'm
working on getting my coding done for the M4 freeze, but as soon as
that's over I think we should put our heads together and work out a plan
for getting the java broker to 0-10. Hopefully then we'd be able to
point you in a more useful direction.
--Rafael
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Rajika Kumarasiri <ra...@wso2.com>.
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:00 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:52 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> >
> >> 2008/10/20 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >>> Has anybody started on that? I know there's been some work done on
> >>> making it easier to do with the broker. Are there any design docs?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> My refactoring of the broker took into account some of the things we
> >> will encounter in 0-10, such as changes to flow control and a distinct
> >> "acquired" state for message entries.
> >>
> >> I think the biggest hurdle will be to re-engineer the broker to handle
> >> the 0-8 and 0-10 stuff without making it such a dogs breakfast as the
> >> client. I really don't want to see the same level of separateness in
> >> the broker if at all possible.
> >>
> >> I think I would start by getting the 0-10 style I/O stuff into the
> >> broker and removing the remaining MINA-isms ... We can throw in the
> >> 0-10 stack but then need to get some sort of model of Channel/Session
> >> that fits comfortably in the broker and works with the 0-8/9 and 0-10
> >> dispatch mechanisms.
> >>
> >
> > So the issues that are reported against Java broker need to fix in this
> > process, right ?
> >
> > -Rajika
> >
>
> Best is to hit Rob and Rafi up if you want to help out with the 0-10
> broker work. They have spent
> the most time looking into how best to do it as far as I know. I am sure
> they will be glad for any
> extra help they can get.
Yes, I would like to contribute to the Qpid project and get Qpid java
broker 0-10 specification support. Any guide on the JIRAs which should
be get fixed for 0-10 specification support of Java broker would be
highly appreciated. Thanks!
-Rajika
>
> Carl.
>
>
--
http://wso2.org
http://llvm.org
http://www.osdev.org
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:52 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote:
>
>> 2008/10/20 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Has anybody started on that? I know there's been some work done on
>>> making it easier to do with the broker. Are there any design docs?
>>>
>>>
>> My refactoring of the broker took into account some of the things we
>> will encounter in 0-10, such as changes to flow control and a distinct
>> "acquired" state for message entries.
>>
>> I think the biggest hurdle will be to re-engineer the broker to handle
>> the 0-8 and 0-10 stuff without making it such a dogs breakfast as the
>> client. I really don't want to see the same level of separateness in
>> the broker if at all possible.
>>
>> I think I would start by getting the 0-10 style I/O stuff into the
>> broker and removing the remaining MINA-isms ... We can throw in the
>> 0-10 stack but then need to get some sort of model of Channel/Session
>> that fits comfortably in the broker and works with the 0-8/9 and 0-10
>> dispatch mechanisms.
>>
>
> So the issues that are reported against Java broker need to fix in this
> process, right ?
>
> -Rajika
>
Best is to hit Rob and Rafi up if you want to help out with the 0-10
broker work. They have spent
the most time looking into how best to do it as far as I know. I am sure
they will be glad for any
extra help they can get.
Carl.
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Martin Ritchie wrote:
>> 2008/10/29 Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>:
>>> Gordon Sim wrote:
>>>> Marnie McCormack wrote:
>>>>> Is there a revised timeline for M4 now ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Be good to know when the likely freeze will be.
>>>> My view is that the freeze has begun and we are now in testing,
>>>> polishing
>>>> and fixing mode. If anyone has a must have 'feature' for M4 that
>>>> isn't in
>>>> yet those can be raised as exceptions and the impact discussed, but
>>>> on the
>>>> whole we should now be trying to close everything down and reach a
>>>> stable,
>>>> well tested point where we can release.
>>> That would be my view as well. As soon as there are no known issues
>>> I'll
>>> make an RC. At the moment other than Steve's outstanding changes
>>> there are a
>>> few issues that need to be sorted out with SSL on Java.
>>>
>>> --Rafael
>>
>> Rafi,
>>
>> Just wanted to get an idea of what our timetable for M4 looks like.
>> Would you agree with the following dates?
>>
>> Freeze: 23rd
>> Beta: 30th
>> RC1: 7th
>> Release: 14th
>>
>> For M3 Aidan built some Alpha's to ensure that everything was going as
>> expected. Are you going to do the same thing?
>
> Yes
It looks to me we might have more like 2 weeks of work between Beta and
RC1, that is just my guess from
shorting the issues. There is a tone of stuff in M4.
I will update the roadmap page so that we can start to make a public
list of it
Carl.
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> 2008/10/29 Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>:
>> Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> Marnie McCormack wrote:
>>>> Is there a revised timeline for M4 now ?
>>>>
>>>> Be good to know when the likely freeze will be.
>>> My view is that the freeze has begun and we are now in testing, polishing
>>> and fixing mode. If anyone has a must have 'feature' for M4 that isn't in
>>> yet those can be raised as exceptions and the impact discussed, but on the
>>> whole we should now be trying to close everything down and reach a stable,
>>> well tested point where we can release.
>> That would be my view as well. As soon as there are no known issues I'll
>> make an RC. At the moment other than Steve's outstanding changes there are a
>> few issues that need to be sorted out with SSL on Java.
>>
>> --Rafael
>
> Rafi,
>
> Just wanted to get an idea of what our timetable for M4 looks like.
> Would you agree with the following dates?
>
> Freeze: 23rd
> Beta: 30th
> RC1: 7th
> Release: 14th
>
> For M3 Aidan built some Alpha's to ensure that everything was going as
> expected. Are you going to do the same thing?
Yes
> I feel that things may have already slipped a week to allow Steve to
> get the Windows port fully committed, what are your thoughts?
I agree we're probably a week behind. Judging from JIRA, there are still
a lot of open issues for M4, so I think a Beta on the 30th might be
premature. It's difficult to tell though since many of the JIRAs may be
code complete but not necessarily updated. I think the next step is to
focus on a bit of JIRA maintenance and then figure out our timeline
based on an a more accurate picture of the open issues.
Here's the filter I'm currently using to view open M4 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=12312868
Note that there may be M4 issues not in this list if they aren't
properly marked with a version.
--Rafael
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
2008/10/29 Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>:
> Gordon Sim wrote:
>>
>> Marnie McCormack wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a revised timeline for M4 now ?
>>>
>>> Be good to know when the likely freeze will be.
>>
>> My view is that the freeze has begun and we are now in testing, polishing
>> and fixing mode. If anyone has a must have 'feature' for M4 that isn't in
>> yet those can be raised as exceptions and the impact discussed, but on the
>> whole we should now be trying to close everything down and reach a stable,
>> well tested point where we can release.
>
> That would be my view as well. As soon as there are no known issues I'll
> make an RC. At the moment other than Steve's outstanding changes there are a
> few issues that need to be sorted out with SSL on Java.
>
> --Rafael
Rafi,
Just wanted to get an idea of what our timetable for M4 looks like.
Would you agree with the following dates?
Freeze: 23rd
Beta: 30th
RC1: 7th
Release: 14th
For M3 Aidan built some Alpha's to ensure that everything was going as
expected. Are you going to do the same thing?
I feel that things may have already slipped a week to allow Steve to
get the Windows port fully committed, what are your thoughts?
Regards
Martin
--
Martin Ritchie
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Gordon Sim wrote:
> Marnie McCormack wrote:
>> Is there a revised timeline for M4 now ?
>>
>> Be good to know when the likely freeze will be.
>
> My view is that the freeze has begun and we are now in testing,
> polishing and fixing mode. If anyone has a must have 'feature' for M4
> that isn't in yet those can be raised as exceptions and the impact
> discussed, but on the whole we should now be trying to close everything
> down and reach a stable, well tested point where we can release.
That would be my view as well. As soon as there are no known issues I'll
make an RC. At the moment other than Steve's outstanding changes there
are a few issues that need to be sorted out with SSL on Java.
--Rafael
RE: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
> Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > Is there a revised timeline for M4 now ?
> >
> > Be good to know when the likely freeze will be.
>
> My view is that the freeze has begun and we are now in testing,
> polishing and fixing mode. If anyone has a must have 'feature' for
M4
> that isn't in yet those can be raised as exceptions and the impact
> discussed, but on the whole we should now be trying to close
> everything
> down and reach a stable, well tested point where we can release.
I'm still working to complete the Windows integration with the svn
repository (migrating from github). I'm waiting for some review on
jira issues and patches, and completing the broker stuff (mostly
related to things that changed between the last time I migrated the
git-copied master/svn stuff to the windows port and now).
There's little to no new code going in - there's some shifting around
to push Linux-specific code to platform-specific areas and
compiler-related tweaks.
Please let me know the best way to handle the remaining code, which
should be resolved within a day or two.
Thanks,
-Steve
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Marnie McCormack wrote:
> Is there a revised timeline for M4 now ?
>
> Be good to know when the likely freeze will be.
My view is that the freeze has begun and we are now in testing,
polishing and fixing mode. If anyone has a must have 'feature' for M4
that isn't in yet those can be raised as exceptions and the impact
discussed, but on the whole we should now be trying to close everything
down and reach a stable, well tested point where we can release.
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Rafi,
Is there a revised timeline for M4 now ?
Be good to know when the likely freeze will be.
Many Thanks,
Marnie
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>wrote:
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
>> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please try to get all your feature related commits in by Friday, so we
>>>> can
>>>> focus on
>>>> testing and bugs starting next week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are there going to be alpha/beta releases between now and when M4 is
>>> due to go out?
>>>
>>> - Aidan
>>>
>>>
>> yea, we should use the same drill -- get the tree building cleanly, and
>> once we believe the tree
>> is stable build an alpha candidate, etc... till we get confident enough to
>> build an RC. then start the
>> review on the RC's
>>
>
> I'm still working on fixing/stabilizing my last feature. I figure there's
> no point in building an RC while I have known blockers on that. Hopefully I
> should finish that today though so with any luck I'll be ready to produce an
> RC early next week.
>
> --Rafael
>
>
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Please try to get all your feature related commits in by Friday, so
>>> we can
>>> focus on
>>> testing and bugs starting next week.
>>>
>>
>> Are there going to be alpha/beta releases between now and when M4 is
>> due to go out?
>>
>> - Aidan
>>
> yea, we should use the same drill -- get the tree building cleanly, and
> once we believe the tree
> is stable build an alpha candidate, etc... till we get confident enough
> to build an RC. then start the
> review on the RC's
I'm still working on fixing/stabilizing my last feature. I figure
there's no point in building an RC while I have known blockers on that.
Hopefully I should finish that today though so with any luck I'll be
ready to produce an RC early next week.
--Rafael
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Please try to get all your feature related commits in by Friday, so we can
>> focus on
>> testing and bugs starting next week.
>>
>
> Are there going to be alpha/beta releases between now and when M4 is
> due to go out?
>
> - Aidan
>
yea, we should use the same drill -- get the tree building cleanly, and
once we believe the tree
is stable build an alpha candidate, etc... till we get confident enough
to build an RC. then start the
review on the RC's
Carl.
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Please try to get all your feature related commits in by Friday, so we can
> focus on
> testing and bugs starting next week.
Are there going to be alpha/beta releases between now and when M4 is
due to go out?
- Aidan
--
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
"Nine-tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time." - Theodore Roosevelt
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Reminder,
Please try to get all your feature related commits in by Friday, so we
can focus on
testing and bugs starting next week.
(me included..) regards
Carl.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
> Reminder that we will be working to a M4 feature freeze Oct 23rd and
> then moving
> into bug fixing etc...
>
> If you are working on a feature that will run beyond Oct 23, and would
> like to get
> it in please let the list know.
>
> I have one such item, a Multi-consumer lvq browsing & update that
> might drag my
> work out to Friday. (some might say it is a bug, others a feature :-)
>
> regards
> Carl.
Re: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
> Reminder that we will be working to a M4 feature freeze Oct 23rd and
> then moving
> into bug fixing etc...
>
> If you are working on a feature that will run beyond Oct 23, and would
> like to get
> it in please let the list know.
>
> I have one such item, a Multi-consumer lvq browsing & update that
> might drag my
> work out to Friday. (some might say it is a bug, others a feature :-)
>
> regards
> Carl.
Carl,
I'm hoping to provide a C++ implementation of the QMF console API. This
won't be ready by Thursday, but with a few more days, I might be able to
get it done.
-Ted
RE: M4 feature freeze
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Hi Carl,
> Reminder that we will be working to a M4 feature freeze Oct 23rd and
> then moving into bug fixing etc...
>
> If you are working on a feature that will run beyond Oct 23,
> and would like to get it in please let the list know.
I'm planning to have the Windows port in for M4 (really this time ;-)
Most of the code is there - I'm waiting on some review on some
large-ish changes and then there are a few smaller ones, then just
fill out the docs for those who wish to build on Windows.
-Steve
M4 feature freeze
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Reminder that we will be working to a M4 feature freeze Oct 23rd and
then moving
into bug fixing etc...
If you are working on a feature that will run beyond Oct 23, and would
like to get
it in please let the list know.
I have one such item, a Multi-consumer lvq browsing & update that might
drag my
work out to Friday. (some might say it is a bug, others a feature :-)
regards
Carl.
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Rajika Kumarasiri <ra...@wso2.com>.
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:52 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> 2008/10/20 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>:
> > Has anybody started on that? I know there's been some work done on
> > making it easier to do with the broker. Are there any design docs?
> >
> My refactoring of the broker took into account some of the things we
> will encounter in 0-10, such as changes to flow control and a distinct
> "acquired" state for message entries.
>
> I think the biggest hurdle will be to re-engineer the broker to handle
> the 0-8 and 0-10 stuff without making it such a dogs breakfast as the
> client. I really don't want to see the same level of separateness in
> the broker if at all possible.
>
> I think I would start by getting the 0-10 style I/O stuff into the
> broker and removing the remaining MINA-isms ... We can throw in the
> 0-10 stack but then need to get some sort of model of Channel/Session
> that fits comfortably in the broker and works with the 0-8/9 and 0-10
> dispatch mechanisms.
So the issues that are reported against Java broker need to fix in this
process, right ?
-Rajika
--
http://wso2.org
http://llvm.org
http://www.osdev.org
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
2008/10/20 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>:
> Has anybody started on that? I know there's been some work done on
> making it easier to do with the broker. Are there any design docs?
>
My refactoring of the broker took into account some of the things we
will encounter in 0-10, such as changes to flow control and a distinct
"acquired" state for message entries.
I think the biggest hurdle will be to re-engineer the broker to handle
the 0-8 and 0-10 stuff without making it such a dogs breakfast as the
client. I really don't want to see the same level of separateness in
the broker if at all possible.
I think I would start by getting the 0-10 style I/O stuff into the
broker and removing the remaining MINA-isms ... We can throw in the
0-10 stack but then need to get some sort of model of Channel/Session
that fits comfortably in the broker and works with the 0-8/9 and 0-10
dispatch mechanisms.
Unfortunately both Rafi and I are spending far too much time on
AMQP1-0 at the moment to give the Java broker the love it needs to get
to 0-10
Apologies,
Rob
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
Has anybody started on that? I know there's been some work done on
making it easier to do with the broker. Are there any design docs?
On 10/20/08, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
>> hello devs,
>> I'd like to know whether qpid community plans to support 0-10
>> specification version for Qpid/Java broker with upcoming M4 release ?
>
> Unfortunately time constraints have prevented that goal from being
> achieved for M4.
>
--
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
"Nine-tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time." - Theodore Roosevelt
Re: 0-10 spec. support in Java broker
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> hello devs,
> I'd like to know whether qpid community plans to support 0-10
> specification version for Qpid/Java broker with upcoming M4 release ?
Unfortunately time constraints have prevented that goal from being
achieved for M4.