activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <>
Subject Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Date Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:33:13 GMT
With regard to the ip-clearance document[1]. A little update.

For the Copyright section:

 - Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.

On September 5 we got confirmation of the CCLA with the hornetq code
grant. It looks complete to me so we can record that date.

- Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
updated to reflect the new ASF copyright.
  That is still a work in progress - the docs need a license header.

For the Verify distribution rights section:
  - Check that all active committers have a signed CLA on record.

Today, I verified all are present in the activemq group,
    and none are in italics - so all have an icla on record

- Remind active committers that they are responsible for ensuring that
a Corporate CLA is recorded if such is required to authorize their
contributions under their individual CLA.
 I verified this is present in the code grant via the Corporate CLA.
Each is named out explicitly. They got a reminder of their
contribution obligations in the invite to commit.

So we can enter today's date for both of those.

The last two are still a work in progress to be complete before the
first release. The current blocker is getting an apache licensed jms
2.0 dependency.


On 24 September 2014 at 12:08, Gary Tully <> wrote:
> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> [1]
> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <> wrote:
>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>> on #3
>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have the
>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>>  -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>> on #4
>>  - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from jboss
>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
>> counterparts
>>  - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>>  -- We will need to make a functional version without those extension
>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into a
>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
>> file.
>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop if
>> necessary.
>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
>> acceptance.
>> Gary.
>> [1]
>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <> wrote:
>>> Hi Clebert ,
>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that currently
>>> exists on github master (commit
>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>>> Things we still need to do:
>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have CLAs filed.
>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right
>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is
>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <>
>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <>
>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my perspective
>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of
>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing an
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community into
>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and bring
>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to create
>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer
>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me when
>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has JMS
>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and
>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building projects
>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering porting
>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based but
>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo,
>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ
JMS broker
>>>>>>> ( The HornetQ team is currently in
the planning
>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already
>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward
>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the
goal could
>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance
>>>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about
a donation of
>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> | |
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> | |
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> --
> --

View raw message