activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From artnaseef <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:38:06 GMT
HornetQ taking over for ActiveMQ is a possibility whether it shares the name
of not, and nobody is arguing that it should not try.  In fact, I hope I
have made it clear that I am rooting for it to continue on and take the

The question remains - why does it have to use the ActiveMQ name to do so? 
And, again, what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?  "A newer, better
ActiveMQ" is a vague argument - where are the details to show this?

As the carries of the mantle of ActiveMQ, we need to be thorough on a
product of such importance to the community.  Being able to run one metric
that shows it is faster under some set of conditions is not adequate.  I
could easily write a few lines of code that "pass messages" and outperforms
ActiveMQ and HornetQ.  How would it perform with a JMS interface in front of
it, transactions, persistence, etc?  That would be a totally different
matter altogether.  Likewise, as HornetQ adds functionality and complexity,
how will it continue to perform, and will it really be better than ActiveMQ? 
That remains unclear.

Also, I don't appreciate the "old and crufty" argument.  There is definitely
room for improvement in the ActiveMQ code base - so let's make it better. 
Where are the folks who make these statements working to make it better? 
And, of course, anyone who feels ActiveMQ is old-and-crufty is free to leave
and work on something else.  Please don't turn into a force that only
attacks ActiveMQ and harps on negatives; those actions do not move ActiveMQ

ActiveMQ is a world-class solution that is doing the job for many, many
companies and governments at very large scales.  That will continue for the
foreseeable future.

Last year, "old and crufty" was the argument for HawtIO to replace the
built-in web console.  After HawtIO was removed from ActiveMQ, how many of
the folks that said the console was in need of repair took up further action
to improve it?  I took up such action, and so did a handful of others, but I
don't recall seeing anyone pushing HawtIO doing the same.  So please look at
your own actions before accusing others of only hindering progress.

Again, HornetQ should continue on.  And perhaps one day it will replace
ActiveMQ.  But, if we cannot clearly define a benefit to the ActiveMQ
community to declaring today that HornetQ is activemq-6, then let's stop
this waste of effort and move it where it belongs - as its own project.

View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message