Integration with RocketMQ
Locked
 
|
Igniters,
Recently I am looking into a new pub/sub messaging Apache incubator project called RocketMQ [1], originally developed at Alibaba. And I am thinking about implementing a streamer for Ignite. Do you think it has to be placed under modules/ of Ignite project, or better to have it together with other RocketMQ Community Projects [2]? I talked to the project's lead -- any approach seems to be ok. I anticipate quite frequent releases of the project this year (much more frequent than Ignite's), and I think it will be easier to release such integration updates with the 2nd approach, as soon as a new RocketMQ's (or Ignite's) version is available. Any thoughts? [1] http://rocketmq.apache.org/[2] https://github.com/rocketmq Roman |
|
|
I would place it under Ignite for consistency with other streamers.
--Yakov |
|
|
In reply to this post by Roman Shtykh
Roman,
Does it make sense to have corresponding integration modules in both projects? For instance, there is Camel and Ignite integration that is hosted in both projects. https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/master/modules/camel https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite <https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite> I do believe that the modules are not 100% identical and the reason it’s done this way might be because the modules use different Camel or Ignite interfaces and concepts. Is this approach somehow related to RocketMQ and Ignite? — Denis > On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Igniters, > Recently I am looking into a new pub/sub messaging Apache incubator project called RocketMQ [1], originally developed at Alibaba. And I am thinking about implementing a streamer for Ignite. > Do you think it has to be placed under modules/ of Ignite project, or better to have it together with other RocketMQ Community Projects [2]? I talked to the project's lead -- any approach seems to be ok. > I anticipate quite frequent releases of the project this year (much more frequent than Ignite's), and I think it will be easier to release such integration updates with the 2nd approach, as soon as a new RocketMQ's (or Ignite's) version is available. > Any thoughts? > [1] http://rocketmq.apache.org/[2] https://github.com/rocketmq > Roman |
|
|
Denis,
I think our Kafka integration is the closest to what may be required for RockerMQ. But also I wouldn't exclude expanding to Camel's approach in future, thanks a lot for pointing to it! Let's have it with other streamers as Yakov suggested, and let's discuss again if something fancy is requested ;) I will create a JIRA issue for that and ask RocketMQ developers for reviews and suggestions from their side. Roman On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:12 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: Roman, Does it make sense to have corresponding integration modules in both projects? For instance, there is Camel and Ignite integration that is hosted in both projects. https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/master/modules/camel https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite <https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite> I do believe that the modules are not 100% identical and the reason it’s done this way might be because the modules use different Camel or Ignite interfaces and concepts. Is this approach somehow related to RocketMQ and Ignite? — Denis > On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Igniters, > Recently I am looking into a new pub/sub messaging Apache incubator project called RocketMQ [1], originally developed at Alibaba. And I am thinking about implementing a streamer for Ignite. > Do you think it has to be placed under modules/ of Ignite project, or better to have it together with other RocketMQ Community Projects [2]? I talked to the project's lead -- any approach seems to be ok. > I anticipate quite frequent releases of the project this year (much more frequent than Ignite's), and I think it will be easier to release such integration updates with the 2nd approach, as soon as a new RocketMQ's (or Ignite's) version is available. > Any thoughts? > [1] http://rocketmq.apache.org/[2] https://github.com/rocketmq > Roman |
|
|
Roman,
Makes perfect sense to me. Do you think we can release this feature in the nearest AI release (1.9 or 2.0) around February/March? — Denis > On Jan 10, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Denis, > I think our Kafka integration is the closest to what may be required for RockerMQ. But also I wouldn't exclude expanding to Camel's approach in future, thanks a lot for pointing to it! > Let's have it with other streamers as Yakov suggested, and let's discuss again if something fancy is requested ;) > I will create a JIRA issue for that and ask RocketMQ developers for reviews and suggestions from their side. Roman > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:12 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Roman, > > Does it make sense to have corresponding integration modules in both projects? > > For instance, there is Camel and Ignite integration that is hosted in both projects. > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/master/modules/camel > https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite <https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite> > > I do believe that the modules are not 100% identical and the reason it’s done this way might be because the modules use different Camel or Ignite interfaces and concepts. Is this approach somehow related to RocketMQ and Ignite? > > — > Denis > >> On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Igniters, >> Recently I am looking into a new pub/sub messaging Apache incubator project called RocketMQ [1], originally developed at Alibaba. And I am thinking about implementing a streamer for Ignite. >> Do you think it has to be placed under modules/ of Ignite project, or better to have it together with other RocketMQ Community Projects [2]? I talked to the project's lead -- any approach seems to be ok. >> I anticipate quite frequent releases of the project this year (much more frequent than Ignite's), and I think it will be easier to release such integration updates with the 2nd approach, as soon as a new RocketMQ's (or Ignite's) version is available. >> Any thoughts? >> [1] http://rocketmq.apache.org/[2] https://github.com/rocketmq >> Roman > > |
|
|
Denis,
Yes, I plan to complete it by that time. #Btw, RocketMQ first release (4.0.0) under Apache license is planned for this month. Roman On Thursday, January 12, 2017 7:30 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: Roman, Makes perfect sense to me. Do you think we can release this feature in the nearest AI release (1.9 or 2.0) around February/March? — Denis > On Jan 10, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Denis, > I think our Kafka integration is the closest to what may be required for RockerMQ. But also I wouldn't exclude expanding to Camel's approach in future, thanks a lot for pointing to it! > Let's have it with other streamers as Yakov suggested, and let's discuss again if something fancy is requested ;) > I will create a JIRA issue for that and ask RocketMQ developers for reviews and suggestions from their side. Roman > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:12 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Roman, > > Does it make sense to have corresponding integration modules in both projects? > > For instance, there is Camel and Ignite integration that is hosted in both projects. > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/master/modules/camel > https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite <https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite> > > I do believe that the modules are not 100% identical and the reason it’s done this way might be because the modules use different Camel or Ignite interfaces and concepts. Is this approach somehow related to RocketMQ and Ignite? > > — > Denis > >> On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Igniters, >> Recently I am looking into a new pub/sub messaging Apache incubator project called RocketMQ [1], originally developed at Alibaba. And I am thinking about implementing a streamer for Ignite. >> Do you think it has to be placed under modules/ of Ignite project, or better to have it together with other RocketMQ Community Projects [2]? I talked to the project's lead -- any approach seems to be ok. >> I anticipate quite frequent releases of the project this year (much more frequent than Ignite's), and I think it will be easier to release such integration updates with the 2nd approach, as soon as a new RocketMQ's (or Ignite's) version is available. >> Any thoughts? >> [1] http://rocketmq.apache.org/[2] https://github.com/rocketmq >> Roman > > |
|
|
Roman,
Do you have any progress on this? It will be perfect to have the feature in 1.9. Please join the discussion: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-1-9-td14170.html <http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-1-9-td14170.html> — Denis > On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Denis, > Yes, I plan to complete it by that time. > #Btw, RocketMQ first release (4.0.0) under Apache license is planned for this month. Roman > > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 7:30 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Roman, > > Makes perfect sense to me. Do you think we can release this feature in the nearest AI release (1.9 or 2.0) around February/March? > > — > Denis > >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Denis, >> I think our Kafka integration is the closest to what may be required for RockerMQ. But also I wouldn't exclude expanding to Camel's approach in future, thanks a lot for pointing to it! >> Let's have it with other streamers as Yakov suggested, and let's discuss again if something fancy is requested ;) >> I will create a JIRA issue for that and ask RocketMQ developers for reviews and suggestions from their side. Roman >> >> On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:12 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> Roman, >> >> Does it make sense to have corresponding integration modules in both projects? >> >> For instance, there is Camel and Ignite integration that is hosted in both projects. >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/master/modules/camel >> https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite <https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/components/camel-ignite> >> >> I do believe that the modules are not 100% identical and the reason it’s done this way might be because the modules use different Camel or Ignite interfaces and concepts. Is this approach somehow related to RocketMQ and Ignite? >> >> — >> Denis >> >>> On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Igniters, >>> Recently I am looking into a new pub/sub messaging Apache incubator project called RocketMQ [1], originally developed at Alibaba. And I am thinking about implementing a streamer for Ignite. >>> Do you think it has to be placed under modules/ of Ignite project, or better to have it together with other RocketMQ Community Projects [2]? I talked to the project's lead -- any approach seems to be ok. >>> I anticipate quite frequent releases of the project this year (much more frequent than Ignite's), and I think it will be easier to release such integration updates with the 2nd approach, as soon as a new RocketMQ's (or Ignite's) version is available. >>> Any thoughts? >>> [1] http://rocketmq.apache.org/[2] https://github.com/rocketmq >>> Roman >> >> > > |
«
Return to Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |