You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2022/09/08 13:54:03 UTC
[DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
use it... (favoring stomp instead).
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
Any objections?
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
As I said on the Voting Thread. Rest is an independent maven
component. Users have to consume it from maven on their own Rest
application.
So, they can still keep doing it from a previous release until they
decide to not use it any more:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4229
That's a good deprecating strategy I think.
The component is not part of the release distribution as far as I can tell.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 2:45 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Although I don't
> think anybody wants to invest the resources to bring all the dependencies
> up-to-date. <<
>
>
> until someone does that, I think it should be out.
>
>
> this is pretty much abandonware.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 2:04 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've been meaning to get to this for awhile. Better late than never, right?
> >
> > Generally speaking, I agree that REST is not a great fit for messaging.
> > Whenever folks ask about it on the mailing lists, Slack, Stack Overflow,
> > etc. I strongly encourage them for two main reasons:
> >
> > - The STOMP protocol is ubiquitous, simple, standardized, and can be used
> > in almost every circumstance and environment where REST might be used.
> > - REST is not portable because there's no standard messaging interface for
> > REST. This is generally bad for users as it locks them in to a specific
> > broker.
> >
> > Here are a few additional reasons:
> >
> > - For simple use-cases (e.g. basic send & receive) it's easy these days to
> > create your own REST interface and then implement messaging behind that.
> > Since the REST interface is in the user's control portability isn't an
> > issue.
> > - It's a bit of a pain to setup as it requires manually building a WAR
> > file.
> >
> > That said, it **is functional**. All the REST tests in the test-suite are
> > passing, and I just ran through the documentation and tested it on a fresh
> > install of 2.25.0. Everything works as far as I can tell. Although I don't
> > think anybody wants to invest the resources to bring all the dependencies
> > up-to-date.
> >
> > Also, I think we should deprecate it and update the documentation with an
> > explanation before we completely remove it.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:04 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> > >
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> > >
> > >
> > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> > >
> > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> > >
> > > Any objections?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
>> Although I don't
think anybody wants to invest the resources to bring all the dependencies
up-to-date. <<
until someone does that, I think it should be out.
this is pretty much abandonware.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 2:04 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I've been meaning to get to this for awhile. Better late than never, right?
>
> Generally speaking, I agree that REST is not a great fit for messaging.
> Whenever folks ask about it on the mailing lists, Slack, Stack Overflow,
> etc. I strongly encourage them for two main reasons:
>
> - The STOMP protocol is ubiquitous, simple, standardized, and can be used
> in almost every circumstance and environment where REST might be used.
> - REST is not portable because there's no standard messaging interface for
> REST. This is generally bad for users as it locks them in to a specific
> broker.
>
> Here are a few additional reasons:
>
> - For simple use-cases (e.g. basic send & receive) it's easy these days to
> create your own REST interface and then implement messaging behind that.
> Since the REST interface is in the user's control portability isn't an
> issue.
> - It's a bit of a pain to setup as it requires manually building a WAR
> file.
>
> That said, it **is functional**. All the REST tests in the test-suite are
> passing, and I just ran through the documentation and tested it on a fresh
> install of 2.25.0. Everything works as far as I can tell. Although I don't
> think anybody wants to invest the resources to bring all the dependencies
> up-to-date.
>
> Also, I think we should deprecate it and update the documentation with an
> explanation before we completely remove it.
>
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:04 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> >
> >
> > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> >
> > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
I've been meaning to get to this for awhile. Better late than never, right?
Generally speaking, I agree that REST is not a great fit for messaging.
Whenever folks ask about it on the mailing lists, Slack, Stack Overflow,
etc. I strongly encourage them for two main reasons:
- The STOMP protocol is ubiquitous, simple, standardized, and can be used
in almost every circumstance and environment where REST might be used.
- REST is not portable because there's no standard messaging interface for
REST. This is generally bad for users as it locks them in to a specific
broker.
Here are a few additional reasons:
- For simple use-cases (e.g. basic send & receive) it's easy these days to
create your own REST interface and then implement messaging behind that.
Since the REST interface is in the user's control portability isn't an
issue.
- It's a bit of a pain to setup as it requires manually building a WAR
file.
That said, it **is functional**. All the REST tests in the test-suite are
passing, and I just ran through the documentation and tested it on a fresh
install of 2.25.0. Everything works as far as I can tell. Although I don't
think anybody wants to invest the resources to bring all the dependencies
up-to-date.
Also, I think we should deprecate it and update the documentation with an
explanation before we completely remove it.
Justin
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 9:04 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> use it... (favoring stomp instead).
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
>
>
> As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
>
> At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
>
> Any objections?
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Question now: should we have someone bringing the rest from AMQ5 into
Artemis? Is there any value on converting it to artemis?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:53 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If there is value on the rest from activemq 5. I would rather bring that one to artemis instead of keeping the one we had.
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:12 PM Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning of this thread?
>> No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is some value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the arguments in support of removing it are "I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session and stateful nature" and "any time someone ask questions we just mention don't use it... (favoring stomp instead)" which I think would apply equally to "Classic".
>>
>> > As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be analyzed before voting for deprecation.
>> How can we analyze usage? Anecdotally, Amazon MQ does not support REST on our managed brokers and we've never had anyone ask for it to be enabled. Just a datapoint, not saying we should make decisions based on that.
>>
>> - Lucas
>>
>> On 2022-09-12, 2:58 PM, "Cesar Hernandez" <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well?
>>
>>
>> Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning
>> of this thread?
>> As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two
>> cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be
>> analyzed before voting for deprecation.
>>
>>
>> El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas
>> (<te...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió:
>>
>> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same
>> > arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
>> >
>> > We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as
>> > incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
>> >
>> > - Lucas
>> >
>> > On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>> > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>> > know the content is safe.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I will go ahead and remove it...
>> >
>> >
>> > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
>> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
>> > >
>> > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly
>> > don’t see many options to keep it.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <
>> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of
>> > chance
>> > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date>
>> > if
>> > >> noone objects' :)
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the
>> > session
>> > >> > and stateful nature.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather
>> > bring the
>> > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
>> > >> > module has to go for sure.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires
>> > various user
>> > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in
>> > doing....I
>> > >> > > think removing it makes sense.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
>> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis
>> > has been
>> > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
>> > interface is
>> > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
>> > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just
>> > mention don't
>> > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving
>> > activemq-artemis into 3.0...
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Any objections?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Atentamente:
>> César Hernández.
>>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
If there is value on the rest from activemq 5. I would rather bring that
one to artemis instead of keeping the one we had.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:12 PM Tetreault, Lucas
<te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the
> beginning of this thread?
> No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is
> some value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the
> arguments in support of removing it are "I don't believe much in rest from
> JMS due to the session and stateful nature" and "any time someone ask
> questions we just mention don't use it... (favoring stomp instead)" which I
> think would apply equally to "Classic".
>
> > As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two
> cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be
> analyzed before voting for deprecation.
> How can we analyze usage? Anecdotally, Amazon MQ does not support REST on
> our managed brokers and we've never had anyone ask for it to be enabled.
> Just a datapoint, not saying we should make decisions based on that.
>
> - Lucas
>
> On 2022-09-12, 2:58 PM, "Cesar Hernandez" <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> >
> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well?
>
>
> Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the
> beginning
> of this thread?
> As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My
> two
> cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest
> should be
> analyzed before voting for deprecation.
>
>
> El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas
> (<te...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió:
>
> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the
> same
> > arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
> >
> > We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as
> > incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
> >
> > - Lucas
> >
> > On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
> Do
> > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the
> sender and
> > know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >
> >
> > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> > >
> > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> > >
> > >
> > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly
> > don’t see many options to keep it.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more
> of
> > chance
> > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at
> <date>
> > if
> > >> noone objects' :)
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to
> the
> > session
> > >> > and stateful nature.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather
> > bring the
> > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and
> this
> > >> > module has to go for sure.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires
> > various user
> > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested
> in
> > doing....I
> > >> > > think removing it makes sense.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in
> Artemis
> > has been
> > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
> > interface is
> > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but
> it's not
> > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just
> > mention don't
> > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving
> > activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the
> module.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Any objections?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
>
> --
> Atentamente:
> César Hernández.
>
> --
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Cesar Hernandez <ce...@gmail.com>.
>
> How can we analyze usage?
Agree, that's an interesting question. On the top of my head, and without
knowing activemq.apache.org website infrastructure details, it would be
interesting to get overall traffic stats from the page
https://activemq.apache.org/rest . That at least will give us some sort of
view of how users are or not even checking the documentation.
El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 18:12, Tetreault, Lucas
(<te...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió:
> > Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the
> beginning of this thread?
> No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is
> some value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the
> arguments in support of removing it are "I don't believe much in rest from
> JMS due to the session and stateful nature" and "any time someone ask
> questions we just mention don't use it... (favoring stomp instead)" which I
> think would apply equally to "Classic".
>
> > As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two
> cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be
> analyzed before voting for deprecation.
> How can we analyze usage? Anecdotally, Amazon MQ does not support REST on
> our managed brokers and we've never had anyone ask for it to be enabled.
> Just a datapoint, not saying we should make decisions based on that.
>
> - Lucas
>
> On 2022-09-12, 2:58 PM, "Cesar Hernandez" <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> >
> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well?
>
>
> Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the
> beginning
> of this thread?
> As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My
> two
> cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest
> should be
> analyzed before voting for deprecation.
>
>
> El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas
> (<te...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió:
>
> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the
> same
> > arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
> >
> > We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as
> > incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
> >
> > - Lucas
> >
> > On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
> Do
> > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the
> sender and
> > know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >
> >
> > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> > >
> > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> > >
> > >
> > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly
> > don’t see many options to keep it.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more
> of
> > chance
> > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at
> <date>
> > if
> > >> noone objects' :)
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to
> the
> > session
> > >> > and stateful nature.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather
> > bring the
> > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and
> this
> > >> > module has to go for sure.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires
> > various user
> > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested
> in
> > doing....I
> > >> > > think removing it makes sense.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in
> Artemis
> > has been
> > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
> > interface is
> > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but
> it's not
> > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just
> > mention don't
> > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving
> > activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the
> module.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Any objections?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
>
> --
> Atentamente:
> César Hernández.
>
>
--
Atentamente:
César Hernández.
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by "Tetreault, Lucas" <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>.
> Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning of this thread?
No, probably not all the same reasons but it seems to me that there is some value in keeping the two brokers in sync. Especially since some of the arguments in support of removing it are "I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session and stateful nature" and "any time someone ask questions we just mention don't use it... (favoring stomp instead)" which I think would apply equally to "Classic".
> As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be analyzed before voting for deprecation.
How can we analyze usage? Anecdotally, Amazon MQ does not support REST on our managed brokers and we've never had anyone ask for it to be enabled. Just a datapoint, not saying we should make decisions based on that.
- Lucas
On 2022-09-12, 2:58 PM, "Cesar Hernandez" <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well?
Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning
of this thread?
As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two
cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be
analyzed before voting for deprecation.
El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas
(<te...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió:
> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same
> arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
>
> We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as
> incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
>
> - Lucas
>
> On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> I will go ahead and remove it...
>
>
> I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> >
> > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> >
> >
> > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly
> don’t see many options to keep it.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of
> chance
> >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date>
> if
> >> noone objects' :)
> >>
> >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the
> session
> >> > and stateful nature.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather
> bring the
> >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> >> > module has to go for sure.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires
> various user
> >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in
> doing....I
> >> > > think removing it makes sense.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis
> has been
> >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
> interface is
> >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just
> mention don't
> >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving
> activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Any objections?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
>
--
Atentamente:
César Hernández.
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Cesar Hernandez <ce...@gmail.com>.
>
> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well?
Do the reasons for removal are the same as those presented at the beginning
of this thread?
As far as I understand, REST from ActiveMQ Classis it´s working. My two
cents is that the usage of the https://activemq.apache.org/rest should be
analyzed before voting for deprecation.
El lun, 12 sept 2022 a las 14:59, Tetreault, Lucas
(<te...@amazon.com.invalid>) escribió:
> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same
> arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
>
> We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as
> incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
>
> - Lucas
>
> On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> I will go ahead and remove it...
>
>
> I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> >
> > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> >
> >
> > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly
> don’t see many options to keep it.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of
> chance
> >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date>
> if
> >> noone objects' :)
> >>
> >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the
> session
> >> > and stateful nature.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather
> bring the
> >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> >> > module has to go for sure.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires
> various user
> >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in
> doing....I
> >> > > think removing it makes sense.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis
> has been
> >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
> interface is
> >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just
> mention don't
> >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving
> activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Any objections?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
>
--
Atentamente:
César Hernández.
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
@Matt no problem at all.. just making it clear...
And I am actually conflicted if there would be value in bringing it to
artemis. If there would be any extra features to be developed?
I don't honestly "believe" in rest over messaging.... the API gets
too stateful to my taste. that's why I'm looking for guidance.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:23 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Clebert-
>
> Yeah, I was just addressing Lucas’ question from earlier in the thread re removing from ActiveMQ 5.
>
> -Matt
>
> > On Sep 13, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not suggesting we remove it.. just if there is value in bringing
> > it to artemis.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:24 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The REST service in ActiveMQ 5 is actively used, and should not be removed. If there are bugs or issues, please file a JIRA.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Matt Pavlovich
> >>
> >>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
> >>>
> >>> We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
> >>>
> >>> - Lucas
> >>>
> >>> On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I will go ahead and remove it...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> >>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> >>>>
> >>>> I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t see many options to keep it.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
> >>>>> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
> >>>>> noone objects' :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I will go ahead and remove it...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
> >>>>>> and stateful nature.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
> >>>>>> servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> >>>>>> module has to go for sure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
> >>>>>>> hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
> >>>>>>> think removing it makes sense.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> >>>>>>>> abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> >>>>>>>> a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> >>>>>>>> functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> >>>>>>>> use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Any objections?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hey Clebert-
Yeah, I was just addressing Lucas’ question from earlier in the thread re removing from ActiveMQ 5.
-Matt
> On Sep 13, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not suggesting we remove it.. just if there is value in bringing
> it to artemis.
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:24 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The REST service in ActiveMQ 5 is actively used, and should not be removed. If there are bugs or issues, please file a JIRA.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt Pavlovich
>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
>>>
>>> We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
>>>
>>> - Lucas
>>>
>>> On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will go ahead and remove it...
>>>
>>>
>>> I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
>>>>
>>>> I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t see many options to keep it.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
>>>>> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
>>>>> noone objects' :)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will go ahead and remove it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
>>>>>> and stateful nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
>>>>>> servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
>>>>>> module has to go for sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
>>>>>>> hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
>>>>>>> think removing it makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
>>>>>>>> abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
>>>>>>>> a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
>>>>>>>> functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
>>>>>>>> use it... (favoring stomp instead).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any objections?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I'm not suggesting we remove it.. just if there is value in bringing
it to artemis.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:24 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The REST service in ActiveMQ 5 is actively used, and should not be removed. If there are bugs or issues, please file a JIRA.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Sep 12, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
> >
> > We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
> >
> > - Lucas
> >
> > On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >
> >
> > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> >>
> >> I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> >>
> >>
> >> Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t see many options to keep it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
> >>> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
> >>> noone objects' :)
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I will go ahead and remove it...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
> >>>> and stateful nature.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
> >>>> servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> >>>> module has to go for sure.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
> >>>>> hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
> >>>>> think removing it makes sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> >>>>>> abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> >>>>>> a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> >>>>>> functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> >>>>>> use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any objections?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
The REST service in ActiveMQ 5 is actively used, and should not be removed. If there are bugs or issues, please file a JIRA.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
>
> We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
>
> - Lucas
>
> On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> I will go ahead and remove it...
>
>
> I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
>>
>> I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
>>
>>
>> Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t see many options to keep it.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
>>> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
>>> noone objects' :)
>>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will go ahead and remove it...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
>>>> and stateful nature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
>>>> servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
>>>> module has to go for sure.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
>>>>> hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
>>>>> think removing it makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
>>>>>> abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
>>>>>> a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
>>>>>> functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
>>>>>> use it... (favoring stomp instead).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any objections?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by "Tetreault, Lucas" <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>.
Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as well? I think the same arguments apply about it being abandonware, etc.
We could deprecate it in the upcoming 5.18.0 release and use this as incentive to cut a 6.0.0 release? __ That would be exciting!
- Lucas
On 2022-09-12, 7:41 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
I will go ahead and remove it...
I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
>
> I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
>
>
> Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t see many options to keep it.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
>> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
>> noone objects' :)
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I will go ahead and remove it...
>> >
>> >
>> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
>> > and stateful nature.
>> >
>> >
>> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
>> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
>> > module has to go for sure.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
>> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
>> > > think removing it makes sense.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
>> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
>> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
>> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
>> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
>> > > >
>> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
>> > > >
>> > > > Any objections?
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Yeah that's the tricky part, I'm not sure how doable it is but figured if
it was ever going to be looked at then a major version change would be the
time to re-visit.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 1:03 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We will have to find a way to comply with older clients though. We can
> break the API but compatibility with older clients has always been
> respected.
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon
> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look
> at
> > things to fix that are breaking changes like the spec violations I
> pointed
> > out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1262 . The issue
> has
> > been around for at least 5 years when I opened the Jira. I didn't see a
> > good way to really fix it without breaking client behavior but I still
> > think it should be fixed.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:40 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I will go ahead and remove it...
> > >
> > >
> > > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> > > >
> > > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t
> > > see many options to keep it.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of
> chance
> > > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date>
> if
> > > >> noone objects' :)
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the
> session
> > > >> > and stateful nature.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather
> bring the
> > > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> > > >> > module has to go for sure.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires
> various
> > > user
> > > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in
> > > doing....I
> > > >> > > think removing it makes sense.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis
> has
> > > been
> > > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
> > > interface is
> > > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> > > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention
> > > don't
> > > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis
> > > into 3.0...
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Any objections?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
We will have to find a way to comply with older clients though. We can
break the API but compatibility with older clients has always been
respected.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon
<ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look at
> things to fix that are breaking changes like the spec violations I pointed
> out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1262 . The issue has
> been around for at least 5 years when I opened the Jira. I didn't see a
> good way to really fix it without breaking client behavior but I still
> think it should be fixed.
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:40 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >
> >
> > I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> > >
> > > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> > >
> > >
> > > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t
> > see many options to keep it.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
> > >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
> > >> noone objects' :)
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
> > >> > and stateful nature.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
> > >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> > >> > module has to go for sure.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various
> > user
> > >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in
> > doing....I
> > >> > > think removing it makes sense.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has
> > been
> > >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
> > interface is
> > >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> > >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention
> > don't
> > >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis
> > into 3.0...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Any objections?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look at
things to fix that are breaking changes like the spec violations I pointed
out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1262 . The issue has
been around for at least 5 years when I opened the Jira. I didn't see a
good way to really fix it without breaking client behavior but I still
think it should be fixed.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:40 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I will go ahead and remove it...
>
>
> I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
> >
> > I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
> >
> >
> > Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t
> see many options to keep it.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
> >> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
> >> noone objects' :)
> >>
> >> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
> >> > and stateful nature.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
> >> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> >> > module has to go for sure.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various
> user
> >> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in
> doing....I
> >> > > think removing it makes sense.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has
> been
> >> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest
> interface is
> >> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> >> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention
> don't
> >> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis
> into 3.0...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Any objections?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I will go ahead and remove it...
I will also bump upstream/main as 3.0 as part of the removal.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
>
> I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
>
>
> Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t see many options to keep it.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
>> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
>> noone objects' :)
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I will go ahead and remove it...
>> >
>> >
>> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
>> > and stateful nature.
>> >
>> >
>> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
>> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
>> > module has to go for sure.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
>> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
>> > > think removing it makes sense.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
>> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
>> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
>> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
>> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
>> > > >
>> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
>> > > >
>> > > > Any objections?
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I didn’t meant to imply I was going to remove it now
I intend to do it on Monday. If no objection.
Although keeping it means we would have to fix it. I honestly don’t see
many options to keep it.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
> to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
> noone objects' :)
>
> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I will go ahead and remove it...
> >
> >
> > to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
> > and stateful nature.
> >
> >
> > But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
> > servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> > module has to go for sure.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
> > > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
> > > think removing it makes sense.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has
> been
> > > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> > > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> > > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> > > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into
> 3.0...
> > > >
> > > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> > > >
> > > > Any objections?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
While I'm fine with it going I'd maybe give other folks more of chance
to reply...or at least use lay concensus style 'ill do it at <date> if
noone objects' :)
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 17:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I will go ahead and remove it...
>
>
> to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
> and stateful nature.
>
>
> But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
> servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
> module has to go for sure.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
> > hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
> > think removing it makes sense.
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> > > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> > > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> > > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> > > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> > >
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> > >
> > >
> > > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> > >
> > > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> > >
> > > Any objections?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I will go ahead and remove it...
to be honest I don't believe much in rest from JMS due to the session
and stateful nature.
But if we were to provide REST for our users, I would rather bring the
servlet from AMQ5. it would be a major task anyway... and this
module has to go for sure.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
> hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
> think removing it makes sense.
>
> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> > abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> > a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> > functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> > use it... (favoring stomp instead).
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
> >
> >
> > As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
> >
> > At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
It has looked to be rotting for a long time, and requires various user
hoop jumping I dont expect many/any folks are interested in doing....I
think removing it makes sense.
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here. Rest in Artemis has been
> abandonware for a while (like 5 years)... The jboss-rest interface is
> a few major releases behind, the module compiles but it's not
> functional, and any time someone ask questions we just mention don't
> use it... (favoring stomp instead).
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/main/artemis-rest
>
>
> As part of new logging changes, we are moving activemq-artemis into 3.0...
>
> At this point I see no other choice than remove the module.
>
> Any objections?
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic