This is probably going to come off as whining. However, I hope the maintainers of Artemis will take it in the spirit it is intended, as a little (hopefully) constructive criticism.
>From what I gather, Artemis is going to replace ActiveMQ at some point in the future. If that is the case, I feel iike the project needs some work on the documentation. I have a feeling that in its current state the documentation may be a barrier to adoption. Currently I am trying to see what it would take to update a project to use Artemis. I think I'm going to be able to make it functional, but it seems to be taking a lot longer than it should. I end up digging through source code to see how to use features that the documentation merely hints about. For example, I have lots of unit tests that use the vm protocol. That's easy in ActiveMQ: using it to create a connection will start an embedded broker if there is not one present already. it appears that is not the case with Artemis, and I cannot figure out how to programatically start an embedded server that handles the vm scheme. I just ended up using the tcp protocol (and that was not particularly easy, either.) Another example: I cannot figure out how to disable persistence in an embedded broker, or even if it's possible. I am not using persistence, but my broker is creating journal files. A third example: I have no idea what most options are for TransportConfigurations. TransportConstants seems to tell me what options I can set, but I no clue what most of them are. -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
