You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by Michael Ivanov <iv...@logit-ag.de> on 2022/10/08 19:35:55 UTC
qpid c++ broker status
Hallo,
Is qpid c++ broker still alive? I see that last release reported on apache
page is 1.39.0 from 2018 and last redhat rpm package I can find is for
centos7/redhat7 only. When I try to build it on rocky9 it fails because
of missing python2 packages.
Best regards,
--
Michael Ivanov
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Virgilio Fornazin <vi...@gmail.com>.
I used C++ broker for about a decade, it was able to send/receive 850000
messages / second (average 500 bytes, with lowest latency possible, near
few milliseconds on high load) on a 8-core (16 threads) 64gb RAM SCSI 15k
rpm disks, using non-persistent queues and AMQP 0-10. These performance we
are talking are of machines a decade ago (2012 XEON E5690, 3rd CORE2
generation).
It supports clustering out of box, but it doesn't have a good UI to manage
/ administer, but QMF protocol is able to perform lots of tasks.
If you need raw pérformance, there's nothing that compares to.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 3:00 PM Tom Jordahl <tj...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I will say that my team tried to migrate from ActiveMQ (classic) to
> Artemis a few years ago and it did not go well.
>
> We then migrated to Qpid Broker-J (and the AMQP/JMS client library) and it
> has been solid – more than ActiveMQ ever was for our use case (~100 queues,
> some with GroupIDs, fairly “low” volume – max 100’s of messages per second).
>
> I am a big fan of Broker-J and the team that supports it here – the stuff
> just works and works well. We have brought problems to the list and they
> have been resolved, either by pointing us to the solution or adding
> functionality that we needed.
>
> --
> Tom
>
> From: Daniil Kirilyuk <da...@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org <us...@qpid.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: qpid c++ broker status
>
> Broker-J is maintained, although not many people are currently working on
> it. Regarding the Java 17 compatibility, the issues you pointed out were
> fixed with QPID-8586 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8586> and
> QPID-8587 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8587>. Currently the
> main Broker-J branch should be able to be build both under Java 11 and Java
> 17.
>
> Kind regards,
> Daniil Kirilyuk
>
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 17:35, Paul <pg...@randomlogic.com> wrote:
>
> > How about Broker-j, is it still being maintained? I posted in the dev
> > mailing list regarding a unit test issues last week and have received no
> > response. I am currently working on updating it (8.0.6 is the code base
> > I am working with) to Java 17 and building a native image (which
> > partially worked with Java 11).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > PGA
> >
> > On 10/10/2022 2:32 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > > ActiveMQ Artemis is probably the most obvious choice as it has the
> > > most ongoing activity.
> > >
> > > The fact is, as you point out, the c++ broker is not being actively
> > > maintained. Unless there are people willing to put in some time to do
> > > that, I think it is better to be clear about how things stand.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Tom Jordahl <tj...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
I will say that my team tried to migrate from ActiveMQ (classic) to Artemis a few years ago and it did not go well.
We then migrated to Qpid Broker-J (and the AMQP/JMS client library) and it has been solid – more than ActiveMQ ever was for our use case (~100 queues, some with GroupIDs, fairly “low” volume – max 100’s of messages per second).
I am a big fan of Broker-J and the team that supports it here – the stuff just works and works well. We have brought problems to the list and they have been resolved, either by pointing us to the solution or adding functionality that we needed.
--
Tom
From: Daniil Kirilyuk <da...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM
To: users@qpid.apache.org <us...@qpid.apache.org>
Subject: Re: qpid c++ broker status
Broker-J is maintained, although not many people are currently working on
it. Regarding the Java 17 compatibility, the issues you pointed out were
fixed with QPID-8586 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8586> and
QPID-8587 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8587>. Currently the
main Broker-J branch should be able to be build both under Java 11 and Java
17.
Kind regards,
Daniil Kirilyuk
On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 17:35, Paul <pg...@randomlogic.com> wrote:
> How about Broker-j, is it still being maintained? I posted in the dev
> mailing list regarding a unit test issues last week and have received no
> response. I am currently working on updating it (8.0.6 is the code base
> I am working with) to Java 17 and building a native image (which
> partially worked with Java 11).
>
> Thanks,
>
> PGA
>
> On 10/10/2022 2:32 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > ActiveMQ Artemis is probably the most obvious choice as it has the
> > most ongoing activity.
> >
> > The fact is, as you point out, the c++ broker is not being actively
> > maintained. Unless there are people willing to put in some time to do
> > that, I think it is better to be clear about how things stand.
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Daniil Kirilyuk <da...@gmail.com>.
Broker-J is maintained, although not many people are currently working on
it. Regarding the Java 17 compatibility, the issues you pointed out were
fixed with QPID-8586 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8586> and
QPID-8587 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8587>. Currently the
main Broker-J branch should be able to be build both under Java 11 and Java
17.
Kind regards,
Daniil Kirilyuk
On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 17:35, Paul <pg...@randomlogic.com> wrote:
> How about Broker-j, is it still being maintained? I posted in the dev
> mailing list regarding a unit test issues last week and have received no
> response. I am currently working on updating it (8.0.6 is the code base
> I am working with) to Java 17 and building a native image (which
> partially worked with Java 11).
>
> Thanks,
>
> PGA
>
> On 10/10/2022 2:32 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > ActiveMQ Artemis is probably the most obvious choice as it has the
> > most ongoing activity.
> >
> > The fact is, as you point out, the c++ broker is not being actively
> > maintained. Unless there are people willing to put in some time to do
> > that, I think it is better to be clear about how things stand.
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Paul <pg...@randomlogic.com>.
How about Broker-j, is it still being maintained? I posted in the dev
mailing list regarding a unit test issues last week and have received no
response. I am currently working on updating it (8.0.6 is the code base
I am working with) to Java 17 and building a native image (which
partially worked with Java 11).
Thanks,
PGA
On 10/10/2022 2:32 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> ActiveMQ Artemis is probably the most obvious choice as it has the
> most ongoing activity.
>
> The fact is, as you point out, the c++ broker is not being actively
> maintained. Unless there are people willing to put in some time to do
> that, I think it is better to be clear about how things stand.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
The proton bindings will certainly work against activemq artemis. The
brokers do have different semantic behaviours in some areas however,
so it really depends on how your broker is configured and what
behaviours you rely on.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 1:24 PM Jonathan Schaeffer
<jo...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> would a migration from qpidd to artemis require changes on the clients ?
> Specifically, clients use python-qpid-proton bindings. Would we need to
> rewrite client's codes ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 10/10/22 10:32, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > ActiveMQ Artemis
>
> --
> Jonathan (ﾉ°益°)ﾉ 彡 [ɹǝɟɟǝɐɥɔS]
> Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers de Grenoble
> Responsable technique Résif-DC
> 🏢 Isterre, bureau 035, 1381 rue de la Piscine 38610 GIERES
> ✆ +33 4 76 63 51 37
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Jonathan Schaeffer <jo...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr>.
Hello,
would a migration from qpidd to artemis require changes on the clients ?
Specifically, clients use python-qpid-proton bindings. Would we need to
rewrite client's codes ?
Cheers,
On 10/10/22 10:32, Gordon Sim wrote:
> ActiveMQ Artemis
--
Jonathan (ﾉ°益°)ﾉ 彡 [ɹǝɟɟǝɐɥɔS]
Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers de Grenoble
Responsable technique Résif-DC
🏢 Isterre, bureau 035, 1381 rue de la Piscine 38610 GIERES
✆ +33 4 76 63 51 37
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
ActiveMQ Artemis is probably the most obvious choice as it has the
most ongoing activity.
The fact is, as you point out, the c++ broker is not being actively
maintained. Unless there are people willing to put in some time to do
that, I think it is better to be clear about how things stand.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 8:50 AM Михаил Иванов <iv...@isle.spb.ru> wrote:
>
> Which broker then is supposed to be used instead?
>
> On 10.10.2022 10:31, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > In my opinion, in the absence of any volunteers able to spend some
> > amount of time on it, we should 'archive' it in some way (i.e. ensure
> > that the code remains available, but that it is clear from the website
> > etc that it is no longer maintained).
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 8:44 PM Michael Ivanov<iv...@logit-ag.de> wrote:
> >> Hallo,
> >>
> >> Is qpid c++ broker still alive? I see that last release reported on apache
> >> page is 1.39.0 from 2018 and last redhat rpm package I can find is for
> >> centos7/redhat7 only. When I try to build it on rocky9 it fails because
> >> of missing python2 packages.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> --
> >> Michael Ivanov
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Михаил Иванов <iv...@isle.spb.ru>.
Which broker then is supposed to be used instead?
On 10.10.2022 10:31, Gordon Sim wrote:
> In my opinion, in the absence of any volunteers able to spend some
> amount of time on it, we should 'archive' it in some way (i.e. ensure
> that the code remains available, but that it is clear from the website
> etc that it is no longer maintained).
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 8:44 PM Michael Ivanov<iv...@logit-ag.de> wrote:
>> Hallo,
>>
>> Is qpid c++ broker still alive? I see that last release reported on apache
>> page is 1.39.0 from 2018 and last redhat rpm package I can find is for
>> centos7/redhat7 only. When I try to build it on rocky9 it fails because
>> of missing python2 packages.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Michael Ivanov
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
Re: qpid c++ broker status
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
In my opinion, in the absence of any volunteers able to spend some
amount of time on it, we should 'archive' it in some way (i.e. ensure
that the code remains available, but that it is clear from the website
etc that it is no longer maintained).
On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 8:44 PM Michael Ivanov <iv...@logit-ag.de> wrote:
>
> Hallo,
>
> Is qpid c++ broker still alive? I see that last release reported on apache
> page is 1.39.0 from 2018 and last redhat rpm package I can find is for
> centos7/redhat7 only. When I try to build it on rocky9 it fails because
> of missing python2 packages.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Michael Ivanov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org