I am primarily talking about bus integration which would include things like,
Once we move to WF 10, we will drop the bus subsystem in favor of the default messaging
subsystem. All that remains of the bus is a shared, common library. It will no longer have
(or need to have) any relationship/dependency with the nest. I wonder if the bus
integration components should live in the main hawkular repo. If we have integration tests
involving these components that run in a hawkular server, then I think from a development
stand point, it makes things easier if they live in the main hawkular repo.
On Dec 1, 2015, at 3:34 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com>
Hi John, I was about to write a message on this topic now after I spoke
with mazz :)
> integration components, particularly those that interact
> with the bus, live in the respective component repos.
I am not 100% sure which are "integration components" for you.
Nevertheless, mazz and me agree to move the "new Bus" (after
HAWKULAR-844) and "new Nest"
) to hawkular-commons
git repository. I'll write more about the proposal in the next message.
On 2015-12-01 21:09, John Sanda wrote:
> Currently integration components, particularly those that interact
> with the bus, live in the respective component repos. I have been
> working with Peter on HAWKULAR-844 to migrate the bus from ActiveMQ
> to the default messaging subsystem in WildFly 10, which is based on
> ActiveMQ Artemis. While working on this, I started to wonder if all
> of the integration components should live in the same repo. Let’s say
> I make a breaking change in the bus, then we have to update and cut
> releases for each of the component repos, which is currently five or
> six. If the integration components live in the same repo as the bus,
> it is much easier to make the changes and we only have one new
> release to worry about. Keeping the integration components in the
> same repo should also help reduce the number of dependencies in each
> of the component repos which makes development on any one of them
> easier. I want to know what people think because once HAWKULAR-844 is
> done, I would like to consider some refactoring in the bus code to
> utilize JMS 2.0 APIs including support for async sending/receiving
> messages. This would likely entail breaking changes.
> - John _______________________________________________ hawkular-dev
> mailing list hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
hawkular-dev mailing list