James et. al. Here's my experience with activemq.
I have a need to transfer large files over a WAN (involves multiple machines, and at times unreliable network hops). There files are generated at pretty much random intervals. I started around when 4.0 was being moved into the apache world. So, the set up ended up consisting of 4 machines: Producer --> BrokerA --> <<WAN>> --> BrokerA --> Consumer Broker A and B with a failover connection between them. Invariably when the WAN has burbs of some sort either of the brokers would get stuck. Sometimes restarting one or both brokers would fix the problem. Sometimes restart would result in lost messages. Other times only removing the derby storage as part of restart would work (resulting in lots of lost messages). So, I tried all kinds of things, like writing a client that forwards the messages (consumes from one broker and produces the messages on the other), this too would have to use a failover connection. Same problems would persist. As new versions of software came out, I would upgrade and never get rid of the problem. (The last I tried was some sort of 4.2 rc, it's been a while). Lots of the 'fixed bugs' listed sounded like they would fix my problem, but they never did. So, I gave up (ended up writing a couple of erlang programs in about 4 hours to accomplish the task). Now I understand the nature of open source software, have contributed to my share of them, so please don't say 'why didn't you just fix the code, produce stack traces, etc.' Simple answer is that I didn't have time, and when a problem occured (once in every 24 to 48 hours) it was most important to fight the fire (I understand the stupidity of that also). So, why am I writing this... Because I think the approach taken to bug fixing in activemq is wrong. Basically bug are fixed against the trunk. They should be fixed 1st against a 'supported version' if the bug is applicable to that version. That is if a bug exists in 4.1.1, it should be fixed in the 4.1 branch 1st, then merged to the trunk. In my world I can not be chasing the latest greatest all the time and take the risk of new bugs being introduced due to features under development. So, I kind of wish that activemq'd have a bug fixing policy along the lines above, and it would be strictly adhered to. This would, of course, mean that there'd have to be one (or maybe two) 'supported versions' at any given time. Thanks for listening, Esa On 6/28/07, Tom Samplonius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have to agree with most of this. ActiveMQ is a buggy as hell. Thats a bit of an exaggeration & a comment thats hardly likely to get the volunteers on the list to help you solve your particular issues. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/About-releases-and-bugs-tf3987476s2354.html#a11363047 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
