Client compatibility of Artemis with AMQ and HQ

[Claudio Tagliola <cl...@imc.nl>]

We have two separate projects in development, one project running on
HornetQ 2.4.7 and another on ActiveMQ 5.8.0. Currently we are
investigating in upgrading at least the HQ one to Artemis, as HQ is no
longer maintained. Next to this, we might also migrate the AMQ one, to
simplify our software stack. The question I have is: how feasible would
these migrations be with respect to client compatibility? In our
environment it is not possible to migrate all brokers and clients in a
single sweep without major trouble. The migration obviously would be
much easier if current clients can connect to Artemis on it's respective
protocol handler. Do people already have experience with these
migrations and are there any pitfalls we should be aware of?

The background of this question is that we had some unexpected
incompatibilities between client and broker when upgrading to a newer
ActiveMQ, around the 5.3/5.4 versions. We will upgrade the clients as
well, but this will take a few days/weeks to roll out completely.

________________________________

The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed.

It may contain confidential and /or privileged material. If someone other than the intended recipient should receive this e-mail, he / she shall not be entitled to read, disseminate, disclose or duplicate it.

If you receive this e-mail unintentionally, please inform us immediately by "reply" and then delete it from your system. Although this information has been compiled with great care, neither IMC Financial Markets & Asset Management nor any of its related entities shall accept any responsibility for any errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in this information or for the consequences thereof, nor shall it be bound in any way by the contents of this e-mail or its attachments. In the event of incomplete or incorrect transmission, please return the e-mail to the sender and permanently delete this message and any attachments.

Messages and attachments are scanned for all known viruses. Always scan attachments before opening them.

Re: Client compatibility of Artemis with AMQ and HQ

[Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>]

We have support for the HornetQ protocol which should work for both 2.3.x
and 2.4.x clients.  To connect older clients simply create an acceptor with
the HORNETQ protocol enabled.

As Clebert already alluded to, in HornetQ and Artemis 1.x JMS queues and
JMS topics names are prefixed with "jms.queue." and "jms.topic."
respectively.  To support this behaviour in Artemis 2.x you can either
create an address with name "jms.queue.<myJMSQueueName>, or simply define
an address "myJMSQueueName" and add "anycastPrefix=jms.queue." to the
acceptor.

There is more information in the user manual in the address model section:
https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/2.1.0/address-model.html

Cheers

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure about 2.4.7 but it should work.
>
>
> The thing thought is the prefix on acceptors
>
>
> With 2.1.0 destinations won't have prefixes.  So you may have to tweak the
> configuration. Maybe having a different port for newer clients.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:46 AM Claudio Tagliola <cl...@imc.nl>
> wrote:
>
> > We have two separate projects in development, one project running on
> > HornetQ 2.4.7 and another on ActiveMQ 5.8.0. Currently we are
> > investigating in upgrading at least the HQ one to Artemis, as HQ is no
> > longer maintained. Next to this, we might also migrate the AMQ one, to
> > simplify our software stack. The question I have is: how feasible would
> > these migrations be with respect to client compatibility? In our
> > environment it is not possible to migrate all brokers and clients in a
> > single sweep without major trouble. The migration obviously would be
> > much easier if current clients can connect to Artemis on it's respective
> > protocol handler. Do people already have experience with these
> > migrations and are there any pitfalls we should be aware of?
> >
> > The background of this question is that we had some unexpected
> > incompatibilities between client and broker when upgrading to a newer
> > ActiveMQ, around the 5.3/5.4 versions. We will upgrade the clients as
> > well, but this will take a few days/weeks to roll out completely.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity
> > to which it is addressed.
> >
> > It may contain confidential and /or privileged material. If someone other
> > than the intended recipient should receive this e-mail, he / she shall
> not
> > be entitled to read, disseminate, disclose or duplicate it.
> >
> > If you receive this e-mail unintentionally, please inform us immediately
> > by "reply" and then delete it from your system. Although this information
> > has been compiled with great care, neither IMC Financial Markets & Asset
> > Management nor any of its related entities shall accept any
> responsibility
> > for any errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in this information or
> for
> > the consequences thereof, nor shall it be bound in any way by the
> contents
> > of this e-mail or its attachments. In the event of incomplete or
> incorrect
> > transmission, please return the e-mail to the sender and permanently
> delete
> > this message and any attachments.
> >
> > Messages and attachments are scanned for all known viruses. Always scan
> > attachments before opening them.
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>

Re: Client compatibility of Artemis with AMQ and HQ

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

I'm not sure about 2.4.7 but it should work.


The thing thought is the prefix on acceptors


With 2.1.0 destinations won't have prefixes.  So you may have to tweak the
configuration. Maybe having a different port for newer clients.



On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:46 AM Claudio Tagliola <cl...@imc.nl>
wrote:

> We have two separate projects in development, one project running on
> HornetQ 2.4.7 and another on ActiveMQ 5.8.0. Currently we are
> investigating in upgrading at least the HQ one to Artemis, as HQ is no
> longer maintained. Next to this, we might also migrate the AMQ one, to
> simplify our software stack. The question I have is: how feasible would
> these migrations be with respect to client compatibility? In our
> environment it is not possible to migrate all brokers and clients in a
> single sweep without major trouble. The migration obviously would be
> much easier if current clients can connect to Artemis on it's respective
> protocol handler. Do people already have experience with these
> migrations and are there any pitfalls we should be aware of?
>
> The background of this question is that we had some unexpected
> incompatibilities between client and broker when upgrading to a newer
> ActiveMQ, around the 5.3/5.4 versions. We will upgrade the clients as
> well, but this will take a few days/weeks to roll out completely.
>
> ________________________________
>
> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed.
>
> It may contain confidential and /or privileged material. If someone other
> than the intended recipient should receive this e-mail, he / she shall not
> be entitled to read, disseminate, disclose or duplicate it.
>
> If you receive this e-mail unintentionally, please inform us immediately
> by "reply" and then delete it from your system. Although this information
> has been compiled with great care, neither IMC Financial Markets & Asset
> Management nor any of its related entities shall accept any responsibility
> for any errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in this information or for
> the consequences thereof, nor shall it be bound in any way by the contents
> of this e-mail or its attachments. In the event of incomplete or incorrect
> transmission, please return the e-mail to the sender and permanently delete
> this message and any attachments.
>
> Messages and attachments are scanned for all known viruses. Always scan
> attachments before opening them.
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic