activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Kettelerij <richardkettele...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Date Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:50:06 GMT
+1 for consolidation. I've experience with both ActiveMQ and HornetQ and
both are great brokers with their own strengths and weaknesses. More
importantly there's a very large overlap. Combining both in one would be
huge!

I do belief it's important to keep a narrow focus in order to avoid ending
up with a new but overly bloated product. Also as Daniel mentioned the
HornetQ docs are great. I think it makes sense to use the same (docbook,
gitbook, etc) style for a new HornetQ+ActiveMQ product.

Regards,
Richard
http://richardlog.com

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Matthew Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1  Consolidation should lead to a stronger overall product, and hopefully
> more active contributors and a larger combined user base =)
>
> On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS
> broker
> > (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the
> planning
> > phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
> > whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
> > ActiveMQ community.
> >
> > There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today
> and
> > it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to
> join
> > forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
> > duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
> > developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
> > there.
> >
> > My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a basis
> for
> > the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
> limitations.
> > Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
> performance
> > and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already
> supports
> > STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
> > would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal
> could
> > be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance
> of
> > HornetQ.
> >
> > Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
> > interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a
> donation of
> > the HornetQ codebase.
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> > Clebert.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message