by

Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • May 12 14:15
    bill-torpey commented #401
  • May 11 21:41
    fquinner commented #401
  • May 11 21:31
    bill-torpey commented #401
  • May 11 21:02
    fquinner commented #401
  • May 11 20:49
    bill-torpey commented #401
  • May 11 20:44
    fquinner commented #401
  • May 11 20:30
    bill-torpey commented #401
  • May 11 20:05
    fquinner commented #272
  • May 11 19:59
    fquinner commented #401
  • May 05 13:16
    bill-torpey commented #293
  • May 05 13:15
    fquinner commented #293
  • May 05 13:13
    bill-torpey commented #293
  • May 05 07:34
    fquinner closed #293
  • May 05 07:34
    fquinner commented #293
  • May 05 07:33
    fquinner closed #324
  • May 05 07:30
    fquinner closed #402
  • May 05 07:30
    fquinner commented #402
  • May 05 07:30
    fquinner closed #409
  • May 05 07:30
    fquinner commented #409
  • May 05 07:29

    fquinner on next

    Ported JNI implementation to us… (compare)

fquinner
@fquinner
Installing DLL to lib was in older versions too but unit tests still didn't fail
Yeah old versions failed with that too
mama_loadPlugin(): Could not open plugin library [dqstrategy] [126]
Well the tests didn't fail, but they reported that error
I expect your test failures may be unrelated to that though
Yeah hang on this rings a different bell can you merge the latest release branch?
fquinner
@fquinner
I think qpid broke compatibility (again)
I reverted for the rc builds and think I forgot to merge back into next
Yeah that's my bet try that and push back in
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Hey @fquinner sorry about the wait my git skills are still not that great. I updated #396 by synchronizing the pr branch with OpenMAMA 6.3.0 branch hopefully that's what will be ok for the PR. Let me know if I need to do something else for the PR.
fquinner
@fquinner
OK awesome cheers will keep an eye out!
Windows looks better now anyway!
fquinner
@fquinner
That's it merged now thanks!
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Hey @fquinner I'm trying to address the issue described in #297 in the bridge I'm working on and I found that the openmama Payload tests for update sub msg segfault as they still pass a msgPayload not a mamaMsg. I really think the bridge function definition should be updated and the co-responding tests should be updated before 6.3.0 is made to officially release. What you think?
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Also I checked out the OpenMAMA docker image looks like the "latest" tag points to 6.2.2? Will there be a 6.3.0 docker image? Also will there be docker images for release candidates? (I am interested in how and what to expect for docker image release for openmama.)
fquinner
@fquinner
Yeah I'm OK for changing to be honest I don't think many people make use of submsg anyway, and updating to support would be an easy fix
Yeah latest is a copy of whatever was in next at the time I was testing I'll do new release once 6.3.0 is released
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
@fquinner when do think you get commit the bridge interface updates?
fquinner
@fquinner
I thought you were working on those?
Or do you mean something unrelated to #297?
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Nope, I can update the bridge interface if you need me to. I only got a build environment for c and cpp but I think the bridge interface is only accessed through c so all the other bindings would be fine, correct?
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Also @fquinner do you think that making the bridge interface consistent would be a good idea? For example mamaMsg_updateSubMsg should now pass a mamaMsg to the payload when the mamaMsg_addMsg passes a msgPayload? Should updated as well to make the api consistent?
fquinner
@fquinner
yes for the bridge, C is all you need to worry about
and yes I think mamaMsg is better leaves opportunity open for transcoding
(and thanks :))
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Hey @fquinner do you think mamaMsg_applyMsg is also a candidate for transcoding message from the payload bridge?
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Created pull request #397. It does not include changes for mamaMsg_applyMsg @fquinner if you think its worth it to make similar changes let me know.
fquinner
@fquinner
It probably is worth it yeah but would need to run that one by the mailing list I know its much more commonly used so community may be more opposed to breaking changes in that area
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Hmm looks like some tests that were disabled (which I accidently enabled) failed. Interestingly enough they passed when I ran them. I guess the qpid bridge has some issue with those tests?
Nope my testing scripts try to skip certain tests that's probably why
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Looks like the only test failures are the ones a accidentally enabled. I'll disable them again to hopefully get a clean merge.
fquinner
@fquinner
Awesome sounds good thanks!
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Looks like I got a clean build for #397.
fquinner
@fquinner
Yeah I saw that thanks will get a proper review shortly, need to send note out to mailing list too
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Hey @fquinner I'm having some trouble building my bridges on windows without scons. I've changed how my bridges build to no longer use scons. However my bridge depends on the port.h header which seems to include a <windows/lock.h> which is not a part of the install directory from build openmama with cmake. Should the port.h on windows be including the <windows/lock.h>?
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
I noticed that the sample qpid bridge includes internal wombat common source directories in it's cmake lists. Are bridges required to have the openmama source in order to build? I was under the impression that bridges no longer needed openmama source to build.
fquinner
@fquinner
Bridges definitely shouldn't need openmama source to build that's what the integration headers are supposed to be for (if required)
It sounds like the path of least resistance is simply to include those files on windows cmake install
Qpid does it because mama it may not be building against an "installed" openmama codebase so it has to use code relative the source tree
fquinner
@fquinner
If it was an external bridge it wouldn't do that
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Ok sounds reasonable to me, thanks. After #397 gets merged and a fix for #398 is done do you think it would be a good point to get a 6.3.0-rc2?
fquinner
@fquinner
Yeah I have been on holidays most of August (and still am) hence the tardiness :)
fquinner
@fquinner
New OpenMAMA builds cooking...
fquinner
@fquinner
New builds ready folks
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Thanks @fquinner so far so good, I noticed openmama-6.3.0rc2.win.x64.zip link seems to be missing from https://github.com/OpenMAMA/OpenMAMA/releases/tag/OpenMAMA-6.3.0-rc2, release page though. Win64 seems to build fine for me when I try from source.
fquinner
@fquinner
Erm must have just missed one will check tomorrow - builds were all a clean slate but you have to download the artifacts individually from appveyor so super easy to miss one
Actually just did it from my phone there good hunting :)
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
https://github.com/OpenMAMA/OpenMAMA/releases/tag/OpenMAMA-6.3.0-rc2 and https://github.com/OpenMAMA/OpenMAMA/releases/tag/OpenMAMA-6.3.0-rc1 are both missing their linux tar archive, see 6.2.3, https://github.com/OpenMAMA/OpenMAMA/releases/download/OpenMAMA-6.2.3-release/openmama-6.2.3.linux.x86_64.tar.gz. @fquinner Was this archive missed like windows?
Chris Morgan
@cjwmorgan-sol
Other then the missing build artifacts for Linux. OpenMAMA 6.3.0-rc2 passes my tests on linux and windows. Looks good to me for release.
fquinner
@fquinner
Thanks Chris I had actually forgotten to add that to autobuilds since moving to docker but its in again now ready for release