From: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; To: &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Clebert Suconic" <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 1:15:04 PM Subject: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 Copied below is a discussion we had today on #jboss-as7 in IRC that I'm copying here to get input from the HQ folks. AS 7 currently has 2 HQ-related subsystems, "messaging" which provides core HQ, and "jms" which brings in JMS spec compliance. The gist of the discussion is 1) whether this separation is overly unintuitive and 2) if it's necessary, is the name "messaging" for the core HQ subsystem too likely to lead users to assume it's where JMS topic/queue creation is done. The conversation is below. It carried on after the following; please see http://echelog.matzon.dk/logs/browse/jboss-as7/1302040800 if you are interested. pilhuhn: Also I am astonished that Q s are present , but not Topics [1:52pm] bstansberry: pilhuhn: there are topics in the jms subsystem [1:53pm] bstansberry: the "messaging" subsystem is very oriented toward core HornetQ [1:54pm] bstansberry: Nihility: ^^^ reminds me of our discussion w/ paul re: the JGroups subsystem, where we decided it was silly to give a "generic" name to a subsystem that was not exposing a standard API [1:55pm] bstansberry: same applies to subsystem=messaging [1:55pm] pilhuhn: so Qs are in both? messaging and jms? feels strange [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: makes sense [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: sort of [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: another example is subsystem=web [1:56pm] Nihility: bstansberry: which is jboss web [1:56pm] bstansberry: well, that at least is exposing the Servlet spec [1:56pm] dmlloyd: shared global bindings are a nasty little problem [1:56pm] Nihility: i think our goal should just be to have subsystem names [1:56pm] Nihility: that are intuitive easy to understand [1:57pm] Nihility: jgroups vs group-communication is basically the same to me [1:57pm] dmlloyd: jgroups is unambiguous and concise imo [1:57pm] bstansberry: yes, that's decided [1:57pm] Nihility: yes [1:57pm] dmlloyd: hornetq should be hornetq [1:57pm] Nihility: the reason for messaging and jms is different [1:57pm] pilhuhn: I think it needs to be clear that for an enduse, that he wants to have a jms/queue and not a messaging/queue when doing jms [1:58pm] dmlloyd: jms should be jms [1:58pm] Nihility: they realy do have two subsystems [1:58pm] dmlloyd: if there is such a generic notion [1:58pm] bstansberry: right, so calling hornetq "messaging" is not intuitive [1:58pm] Nihility: they have this notion of a lightweight topic [1:58pm] bstansberry: people will gravitate toward it [1:59pm] pilhuhn: Yeah leightweight.. it will float in the clouds [1:59pm] Nihility: and thats what they think is a real messaging api [1:59pm] pilhuhn: .oO( DId I win as BS-Bingo? ) [1:59pm] Nihility: jms is just something extra they do for the spec [1:59pm] Nihility: with extra requirements etc [1:59pm] Nihility: so its like a higher level layer [1:59pm] Nihility: so they have core messaging [1:59pm] Nihility: and they have jms [1:59pm] Nihility: and togheter thats hornetq [1:59pm] bstansberry: good point [2:00pm] bstansberry: ok, no JIRA, at least not from me [2:01pm] bstansberry: instead, a dev list thread and the HQ people can deal with it [2:01pm] pilhuhn: The admin that wants to use a MessageDrivenBean does not really care about that separation [2:02pm] Nihility: the separation is more because you can run hq without starting the jms services [2:02pm] Nihility: and they have separate configuration [2:02pm] pilhuhn: yep [2:02pm] Nihility: although you could collapse the two [2:02pm] Nihility: emuckenhuber and i debated that for awhile [2:02pm] Nihility: we had a hard time deciding [2:03pm] pilhuhn: What I want to express (and that targets rather us with JON and the console) is that for this said admin it needs to be totally clear that he wants to go to subsys/jms/queue -- Brian Stansberry Principal Software Engineer JBoss by Red Hat _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

From: "Clebert Suconic" <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Andrig Miller" <anmiller(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt;, &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:17:15 PM Subject: Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 Well... Topic subscriptions are just Queues. There are advantages of using the HornetQ API directly... Especially on Asynchronous ACKs. Although I don't understand exactly why you need a separate module on AS7 for this. This is just a simple POJO being accessed through the classloader. (hornetq-core.jar, and hornetq-core-client.jar)

On Apr 6, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Andrig Miller wrote: > Personal take on this, is that there shouldn't be two. The > astonishment below about only have queue's and not topics is a > direct result of this separation, because the implementation details > underneath JMS, in terms of HornetQ, is that there are only queues, > even though topics are fully support, but its still just a queue > underneath. > > This is a problem in my mind. > > Andy > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" >> <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Clebert Suconic" >> <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 1:15:04 PM >> Subject: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 >> Copied below is a discussion we had today on #jboss-as7 in IRC that >> I'm >> copying here to get input from the HQ folks. >> >> AS 7 currently has 2 HQ-related subsystems, "messaging" which >> provides >> core HQ, and "jms" which brings in JMS spec compliance. The gist of >> the >> discussion is 1) whether this separation is overly unintuitive and >> 2) >> if >> it's necessary, is the name "messaging" for the core HQ subsystem >> too >> likely to lead users to assume it's where JMS topic/queue creation >> is >> done. >> >> The conversation is below. It carried on after the following; >> please >> see >> http://echelog.matzon.dk/logs/browse/jboss-as7/1302040800 if you >> are >> interested. >> >> pilhuhn: Also I am astonished that Q s are present , but not Topics >> [1:52pm] bstansberry: pilhuhn: there are topics in the jms >> subsystem >> [1:53pm] bstansberry: the "messaging" subsystem is very oriented >> toward >> core HornetQ >> [1:54pm] bstansberry: Nihility: ^^^ reminds me of our discussion w/ >> paul >> re: the JGroups subsystem, where we decided it was silly to give a >> "generic" name to a subsystem that was not exposing a standard API >> [1:55pm] bstansberry: same applies to subsystem=messaging >> [1:55pm] pilhuhn: so Qs are in both? messaging and jms? feels >> strange >> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: makes sense >> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: sort of >> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: another example is subsystem=web >> [1:56pm] Nihility: bstansberry: which is jboss web >> [1:56pm] bstansberry: well, that at least is exposing the Servlet >> spec >> [1:56pm] dmlloyd: shared global bindings are a nasty little problem >> [1:56pm] Nihility: i think our goal should just be to have >> subsystem >> names >> [1:56pm] Nihility: that are intuitive easy to understand >> [1:57pm] Nihility: jgroups vs group-communication is basically the >> same >> to me >> [1:57pm] dmlloyd: jgroups is unambiguous and concise imo >> [1:57pm] bstansberry: yes, that's decided >> [1:57pm] Nihility: yes >> [1:57pm] dmlloyd: hornetq should be hornetq >> [1:57pm] Nihility: the reason for messaging and jms is different >> [1:57pm] pilhuhn: I think it needs to be clear that for an enduse, >> that >> he wants to have a jms/queue and not a messaging/queue when doing >> jms >> [1:58pm] dmlloyd: jms should be jms >> [1:58pm] Nihility: they realy do have two subsystems >> [1:58pm] dmlloyd: if there is such a generic notion >> [1:58pm] bstansberry: right, so calling hornetq "messaging" is not >> intuitive >> [1:58pm] Nihility: they have this notion of a lightweight topic >> [1:58pm] bstansberry: people will gravitate toward it >> [1:59pm] pilhuhn: Yeah leightweight.. it will float in the clouds >> [1:59pm] Nihility: and thats what they think is a real messaging >> api >> [1:59pm] pilhuhn: .oO( DId I win as BS-Bingo? ) >> [1:59pm] Nihility: jms is just something extra they do for the spec >> [1:59pm] Nihility: with extra requirements etc >> [1:59pm] Nihility: so its like a higher level layer >> [1:59pm] Nihility: so they have core messaging >> [1:59pm] Nihility: and they have jms >> [1:59pm] Nihility: and togheter thats hornetq >> [1:59pm] bstansberry: good point >> [2:00pm] bstansberry: ok, no JIRA, at least not from me >> [2:01pm] bstansberry: instead, a dev list thread and the HQ people >> can >> deal with it >> [2:01pm] pilhuhn: The admin that wants to use a MessageDrivenBean >> does >> not really care about that separation >> [2:02pm] Nihility: the separation is more because you can run hq >> without >> starting the jms services >> [2:02pm] Nihility: and they have separate configuration >> [2:02pm] pilhuhn: yep >> [2:02pm] Nihility: although you could collapse the two >> [2:02pm] Nihility: emuckenhuber and i debated that for awhile >> [2:02pm] Nihility: we had a hard time deciding >> [2:03pm] pilhuhn: What I want to express (and that targets rather >> us >> with JON and the console) is that for this said admin it needs to >> be >> totally clear that he wants to go to subsys/jms/queue >> >> -- >> Brian Stansberry >> Principal Software Engineer >> JBoss by Red Hat >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

From: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Andrig Miller" <anmiller(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Clebert Suconic" <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt;, &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:44:51 PM Subject: Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 I don't see any technical reason they can't be combined; i.e. there's nothing about the AS 7 architecture that says these need to be separate subsystems. The basic issue is configuration. The xsds for the current 2 subsystems were almostly 100% lifted from the hornetq-jms.xsd and hornetq-configuration.xsd. Those two xsds both have a "queueType" but the meaning is different. If we combine the two subsystems into one, that means we combine the schemas and the management resource trees and we need to make sure it is very intuitive for users to understand what it is they are configuring and how to configure commonly used things. We need to do that whether or not we combine into a single subsystem, since it's clearly not intuitive now. On 4/6/11 3:20 PM, Andrig Miller wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Clebert Suconic&quot;&lt;csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Andrig Miller&quot;&lt;anmiller(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Brian Stansberry&quot;&lt;brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt;, >> &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" >> <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:17:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 >> Well... Topic subscriptions are just Queues. >> >> There are advantages of using the HornetQ API directly... >> Especially >> on Asynchronous ACKs. >> >> Although I don't understand exactly why you need a separate module >> on >> AS7 for this. This is just a simple POJO being accessed through the >> classloader. (hornetq-core.jar, and hornetq-core-client.jar) >> > > Yeah, I don't see why that would be necessary either. Using the core > API directly is fine, and can be exposed in the module along with > JMS. > > Andy > >> >> On Apr 6, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Andrig Miller wrote: >> >>> Personal take on this, is that there shouldn't be two. The >>> astonishment below about only have queue's and not topics is a >>> direct result of this separation, because the implementation >>> details >>> underneath JMS, in terms of HornetQ, is that there are only >>> queues, >>> even though topics are fully support, but its still just a queue >>> underneath. >>> >>> This is a problem in my mind. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Brian Stansberry&quot;&lt;brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" >>>> <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Clebert Suconic" >>>> <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 1:15:04 PM >>>> Subject: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 >>>> Copied below is a discussion we had today on #jboss-as7 in IRC >>>> that >>>> I'm >>>> copying here to get input from the HQ folks. >>>> >>>> AS 7 currently has 2 HQ-related subsystems, "messaging" which >>>> provides >>>> core HQ, and "jms" which brings in JMS spec compliance. The gist >>>> of >>>> the >>>> discussion is 1) whether this separation is overly unintuitive >>>> and >>>> 2) >>>> if >>>> it's necessary, is the name "messaging" for the core HQ subsystem >>>> too >>>> likely to lead users to assume it's where JMS topic/queue >>>> creation >>>> is >>>> done. >>>> >>>> The conversation is below. It carried on after the following; >>>> please >>>> see >>>> http://echelog.matzon.dk/logs/browse/jboss-as7/1302040800 if you >>>> are >>>> interested. >>>> >>>> pilhuhn: Also I am astonished that Q s are present , but not >>>> Topics >>>> [1:52pm] bstansberry: pilhuhn: there are topics in the jms >>>> subsystem >>>> [1:53pm] bstansberry: the "messaging" subsystem is very oriented >>>> toward >>>> core HornetQ >>>> [1:54pm] bstansberry: Nihility: ^^^ reminds me of our discussion >>>> w/ >>>> paul >>>> re: the JGroups subsystem, where we decided it was silly to give >>>> a >>>> "generic" name to a subsystem that was not exposing a standard >>>> API >>>> [1:55pm] bstansberry: same applies to subsystem=messaging >>>> [1:55pm] pilhuhn: so Qs are in both? messaging and jms? feels >>>> strange >>>> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: makes sense >>>> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: sort of >>>> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: another example is subsystem=web >>>> [1:56pm] Nihility: bstansberry: which is jboss web >>>> [1:56pm] bstansberry: well, that at least is exposing the Servlet >>>> spec >>>> [1:56pm] dmlloyd: shared global bindings are a nasty little >>>> problem >>>> [1:56pm] Nihility: i think our goal should just be to have >>>> subsystem >>>> names >>>> [1:56pm] Nihility: that are intuitive easy to understand >>>> [1:57pm] Nihility: jgroups vs group-communication is basically >>>> the >>>> same >>>> to me >>>> [1:57pm] dmlloyd: jgroups is unambiguous and concise imo >>>> [1:57pm] bstansberry: yes, that's decided >>>> [1:57pm] Nihility: yes >>>> [1:57pm] dmlloyd: hornetq should be hornetq >>>> [1:57pm] Nihility: the reason for messaging and jms is different >>>> [1:57pm] pilhuhn: I think it needs to be clear that for an >>>> enduse, >>>> that >>>> he wants to have a jms/queue and not a messaging/queue when doing >>>> jms >>>> [1:58pm] dmlloyd: jms should be jms >>>> [1:58pm] Nihility: they realy do have two subsystems >>>> [1:58pm] dmlloyd: if there is such a generic notion >>>> [1:58pm] bstansberry: right, so calling hornetq "messaging" is >>>> not >>>> intuitive >>>> [1:58pm] Nihility: they have this notion of a lightweight topic >>>> [1:58pm] bstansberry: people will gravitate toward it >>>> [1:59pm] pilhuhn: Yeah leightweight.. it will float in the clouds >>>> [1:59pm] Nihility: and thats what they think is a real messaging >>>> api >>>> [1:59pm] pilhuhn: .oO( DId I win as BS-Bingo? ) >>>> [1:59pm] Nihility: jms is just something extra they do for the >>>> spec >>>> [1:59pm] Nihility: with extra requirements etc >>>> [1:59pm] Nihility: so its like a higher level layer >>>> [1:59pm] Nihility: so they have core messaging >>>> [1:59pm] Nihility: and they have jms >>>> [1:59pm] Nihility: and togheter thats hornetq >>>> [1:59pm] bstansberry: good point >>>> [2:00pm] bstansberry: ok, no JIRA, at least not from me >>>> [2:01pm] bstansberry: instead, a dev list thread and the HQ >>>> people >>>> can >>>> deal with it >>>> [2:01pm] pilhuhn: The admin that wants to use a MessageDrivenBean >>>> does >>>> not really care about that separation >>>> [2:02pm] Nihility: the separation is more because you can run hq >>>> without >>>> starting the jms services >>>> [2:02pm] Nihility: and they have separate configuration >>>> [2:02pm] pilhuhn: yep >>>> [2:02pm] Nihility: although you could collapse the two >>>> [2:02pm] Nihility: emuckenhuber and i debated that for awhile >>>> [2:02pm] Nihility: we had a hard time deciding >>>> [2:03pm] pilhuhn: What I want to express (and that targets rather >>>> us >>>> with JON and the console) is that for this said admin it needs to >>>> be >>>> totally clear that he wants to go to subsys/jms/queue >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Brian Stansberry >>>> Principal Software Engineer >>>> JBoss by Red Hat >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >>>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev -- Brian Stansberry Principal Software Engineer JBoss by Red Hat

Whether they are separate or together, the management has to be understandable by the average person. Most people aren't going to care about the underlying core API. Even in your analogy, the Hibernate guys recommend using the JPA API, not the underlying Hibernate stuff (which of course is starting to be one and the same). So, the real question is how do you make sure this thing can be managed without confusion, between the two. Andy ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clebert Suconic" <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Andrig Miller" <anmiller(a)redhat.com&gt;, &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 3:45:51 PM > Subject: Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 > Just making an analogy: > > JMS Wrapper <-> Core Api > > is analog as > JPA <-> Hibernate > > I don't see the JMS as another subsystem. That's a wrapper in top of > HornetQ core. The add-ons are basically JNDI bindings and other things > like that. > > > For the future of the project, and how message systems are evolving, I > think it's better to separate JMS and Core. For instance we may have > stomp clients, maybe AMQP some day... and etc. > > Who knows... JMS 2 is coming.. maybe we will need extra configs for > JMS2 based on the outcome of what's out of the JSR. (That's off course > just a speculation since JMS2 JSR is still assembling the Expert > Group).

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clebert Suconic&quot;&lt;csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Andrig Miller&quot;&lt;anmiller(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development&quot;&lt;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Brian Stansberry" > <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 10:24:41 PM > Subject: Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 > When you say management, you're talking about the management module > through JMX, or in more general terms? > In AS 7, there is a management API that everything will use, including the console, and that will sit on top of your API (whether JMX or other), at least that's the way I understand it.

> > > On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Andrig Miller wrote: > >> Whether they are separate or together, the management has to be >> understandable by the average person. Most people aren't going to >> care about the underlying core API. >> >> Even in your analogy, the Hibernate guys recommend using the JPA >> API, not the underlying Hibernate stuff (which of course is starting >> to be one and the same). >> >> So, the real question is how do you make sure this thing can be >> managed without confusion, between the two. >> >> Andy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Clebert Suconic&quot;&lt;csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Brian Stansberry&quot;&lt;brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Cc: "Andrig Miller&quot;&lt;anmiller(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>> &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" >>> <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 3:45:51 PM >>> Subject: Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 >>> Just making an analogy: >>> >>> JMS Wrapper<-> Core Api >>> >>> is analog as >>> JPA<-> Hibernate >>> >>> I don't see the JMS as another subsystem. That's a wrapper in top >>> of >>> HornetQ core. The add-ons are basically JNDI bindings and other >>> things >>> like that. >>> >>> >>> For the future of the project, and how message systems are >>> evolving, I >>> think it's better to separate JMS and Core. For instance we may >>> have >>> stomp clients, maybe AMQP some day... and etc. >>> >>> Who knows... JMS 2 is coming.. maybe we will need extra configs for >>> JMS2 based on the outcome of what's out of the JSR. (That's off >>> course >>> just a speculation since JMS2 JSR is still assembling the Expert >>> Group).

AS 7 currently has 2 HQ-related subsystems, "messaging" which provides core HQ, and "jms" which brings in JMS spec compliance. The gist of the discussion is 1) whether this separation is overly unintuitive and 2) if it's necessary, is the name "messaging" for the core HQ subsystem too likely to lead users to assume it's where JMS topic/queue creation is done.