activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:21:50 GMT
To me it means that the existing amq community doesn't want to enter the modern world and would
rather hornetQ hadn't come here.  Sorry to be blunt, but it seems to me that there's a lot
more effort being expended on objecting to the hornetQ donation and trying to get the new
committers to just go away than to integrating the code bases.

Thanks Hiram for making it a bit more explicit why amq is gonna die without a new broker from
somewhere.  Frankly I can't believe your good fortune here.  If you scare away hornetQ I don't
think anyone's about to give you another broker and I don't see anyone here writing a new
one after apollo.

I'll try to shut up now.

david jencks

On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, "Jamie G." <> wrote:

> As a follow up question, is there a good reason to not have HornetQ in the name?
> It clearly lets users know its different, will help them when
> searching for historical solutions to setup/configs.
> -J
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jamie G. <> wrote:
>> I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any
>> different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
>> Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming.
>> Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference
>> clear, and let end users make informed choices down the road.
>> Presenting as AMQ6 as is takes the choice away be virtue of how its
>> marketed.
>> -J
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM, artnaseef <> wrote:
>>> I understand how this benefits HornetQ.  And again, I am personally hoping
>>> HornetQ does well.
>>> The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
>>> "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message