Encouragement is fine. But telling a contributor that his work is useless is not. Especially when that reason is based on irrelevant JBoss.com development policy that doesn't affect them. I already promised him that the work could go in JBoss4 once he had it working and tested in JBoss5. Converting JBossMQ deployments to JBoss Messaging deployments is not an option for everybody. Forcing such a conversion would just leave certain users/customers stuck with JBoss4. Supporting JBossMQ within JBoss5 is no different to supporting JBossMQ within JBoss4 since it is the same codebase. I expect the market to decide that JBoss Messaging is better than JBossMQ (it already is, even before the upcoming clustering features) and the number of JBossMQ users will gradually diminish to zero. On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 17:58 +0000, Andrig T Miller wrote: > Adrian, > > Every new feature that is developed for JBossMQ has to also be > put into JBoss Messaging. It doesn't matter who does the work, in my > mind. New features of any kind should NOT be put into JBossMQ. If > the community wants to contribute something, they need to be > encouraged to contribute to JBoss Messaging. > > On the topic of JBossMQ still being in AS 5, I was not aware that > that was an official decision. If that is the case, that decision > needs to be revisted, in my opinion. I see no reason to have both > code bases in AS 5, considering that customers application code is not > affected by the change, only server configuration. I would rather see > us take a little time to develop a conversion utility for the > migration of the configuration between the two, as part of our > productizing AS 5 and JBoss Messaging, then see us support the old > code base. > > Andy > > On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 14:45 +0200, Adrian Brock wrote: > > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-2156 > > plus some others. > > > > JBossMQ will be a part of JBoss5. > > I've already had to correct this statement on the WIKI before. > > > > JBoss Messaging will be the default, JBossMQ will be optional > > for those that need to keep using their JBossMQ configuration > > within JBoss5. > > > > We will remove support for JBossMQ once people have had time > > to migrate, i.e. probably JBoss6 or maybe 7 depending upon > > when JBoss6 is released. > > > > Development of major new features for JBossMQ by JBoss > > has already stopped except for those requested by paying customers, > > e.g. XARecovery integration with JBossTM is the latest example. > > > > That does not preclude development by the community. > > > > The example above is a feature provided by the community. > > JBoss.com policy towards JBossMQ should not affect this work! > Andrig (Andy) Miller > VP, Engineering > JBoss, a division of Red Hat

On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 14:35 +0000, Andrig T Miller wrote: > Why is a conversion not an option for some customers? Because some customers add bits to JBossMQ, e.g. writing their own persitence manager or interceptor. Admittedly it is not that common, but it happens. More common is use of the JMX interface/names for management/monitoring. e.g. a common usage is creating a queue/topic "on the fly" (not a temporary queue). JBoss Messaging and MQ are not compatible at this level so it requires an investment in retooling where it is used. The important part is that they have time to do this with a sufficient notification, without being left behind. Besides, it shows an investment in long term support. Telling people "we don't support that anymore, look at this shiny new toy instead" isn't always what they want to hear. :-)

OK, so the decision to bundle JBossMQ with JBoss 5 is taken and etched in stone?

can we instead make JBoss MQ be an optional download/drop-in for JBoss 5.0? Ovidiu Feodorov wrote: > OK, so the decision to bundle JBossMQ with JBoss 5 is taken and etched > in stone? > > Andrig T Miller wrote: >> Okay. Makes perfect sense. >> >> We should start a discussion on what things customers are doing with >> JBossMQ that are barriers to moving to JBoss Messaging. This is very >> important for the messaging project to understand. >> >> Also, we will still need to make sure that any feature enhancements >> to JBossMQ are also put into JBoss Messaging. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Andy >> >> On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 16:59 +0200, Adrian Brock wrote: >>> On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 14:35 +0000, Andrig T Miller wrote: >>> > Why is a conversion not an option for some customers? >>> Because some customers add bits to JBossMQ, >>> e.g. writing their own persitence manager or interceptor. >>> Admittedly it is not that common, but it happens. >>> >>> More common is use of the JMX interface/names for >>> management/monitoring. >>> >>> e.g. a common usage is creating a queue/topic "on the fly" >>> (not a temporary queue). >>> >>> JBoss Messaging and MQ are not compatible at this >>> level so it requires an investment in retooling >>> where it is used. >>> >>> The important part is that they have time to do >>> this with a sufficient notification, without >>> being left behind. >>> >>> Besides, it shows an investment in long term support. >>> Telling people "we don't support that anymore, >>> look at this shiny new toy instead" isn't always >>> what they want to hear. :-) >>> >> Andrig (Andy) Miller >> VP, Engineering >> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:54 +0100, Tim Fox wrote: > For customers who really don't want to / can't move to JBoss Messaging > when they move to JB5 , then we can provide a download and a script they > can run, as Sacha has suggested. I think this makes more sense. > The installer is the script. If it doesn't already, it is certainly planned that this should be runnable in "headless" mode. Eventually, this is really just going to create profiles anyway.

Adrian Brock wrote: > More common is use of the JMX interface/names for > management/monitoring. > > e.g. a common usage is creating a queue/topic "on the fly" > (not a temporary queue). > The difference is some extra paging parameters that weren't in JBossMQ because JBossMQ doesn't do the memory paging the same way Messaging does it. This doesn't seem to me to require a major re-tooling effort.