activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From artnaseef <...@artnaseef.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Sat, 28 Mar 2015 19:02:00 GMT
Hey Gary - in all the discussion, I missed this response, so forgive my slow
response.

First, let me apologize for my use of the word "take" - it sounds it was
read as an attack or accusation, and that was not my intent.  I simply
meant, "why is it important that HornetQ be called AMQ-6?"

On the point that AMQ needs a v6, can you tell me why that itself is
important?  Please be specific - I have seen many comments made that really
are just restatements of the line that ActiveMQ needs a new broker, but no
real detail to discuss behind that.  When I look at those statements, I have
to balance them with my belief of ActiveMQ's popularity, market penetration,
and ongoing efforts to add ActiveMQ into companies.

Also, have you considered the possibility that naming Apollo "AMQ-6" has
contributed apparent lack of innovation?  In other words, isn't it a concern
that it will be hard to encourage innovation on the current product,
ActiveMQ 5.x, as long as there's a promise of a very different ActiveMQ 6.x? 
I know that even causes me to pause.



--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4694026.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message