[jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7

Wed Apr 6 17:05:48 EDT 2011

Agreed!

Andy

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry at redhat.com>
> To: "Andrig Miller" <anmiller at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Clebert Suconic" <csuconic at redhat.com>, "jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org Development"
> <jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> 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"<csuconic at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Andrig Miller"<anmiller at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "Brian Stansberry"<brian.stansberry at redhat.com>,
> >> "jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org Development"
> >> <jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >> 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"<brian.stansberry at redhat.com>
> >>>> To: "jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org Development"
> >>>> <jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org>, "Clebert Suconic"
> >>>> <csuconic at redhat.com>
> >>>> 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 at lists.jboss.org
> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
> 
> 
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Principal Software Engineer
> JBoss by Red Hat