activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:52:36 GMT
Hadrian  - so the original vote was to accept the code into ActiveMQ specifically. We would
have to check with the HornetQ developers to see if now going to incubator instead was acceptable
to them - but it does seem to me that their desire to join ActiveMQ was borne out of consolidation
of the code bases - and it does appear it was accepted in that vein. The HornetQ code base
has been worked on to be ready to pass ASF release guidelines - but actually trying to release
it had caused a lot of concern within the community, which is understandable.
 
So instead of passing HornetQ to the incubator - wouldn't it be better to  start a discussion
on how some/all/none of it  could be incorporated into ActiveMQ? I'm not sure this had happened
yet. 

Rob



> On 25 Mar 2015, at 20:53, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and building the
community in the incubator does not prevent anything you mentioned from happing, right?
> 
> Apollo did it right actually. Some folks said that they had a better idea, called the
project Apollo, not activemq-6 (although there were the same references to plans for apollo
to become the core of the next generation of activemq). And the Apollo community went on to
prove its viability. The fact that it didn't happen has many reasons, most of them not technical.
> 
> As an ASF member I am interested in the viability and maturity of a project community.
HornetQ is not yet there. And the fact fact that it's called activemq-6 effectively prevents
the current mature activemq project to have a version 6 in any shape that is not HornetQ.
> 
> I was kinda neutral initially and did not get involved in this thread initially. But
the passion to keep the activemq6 name for hornetq, makes me very suspicious (coupled with
past experiences) that I am getting very strongly in favour of hornetq being re-hosted in
the incubator where there are many very experienced ASFer that could mentor and assist (more
than in the ActiveMQ community). If HornetQ will not happen, the same way Apollo didn't, this
will prove to be another distraction. Some are excited about the future, others are frustrated
about the present.
> 
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
> 
> 
>> On 03/25/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
>> My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
>> and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>> last summer.  It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
>> the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
>> our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>> generation of ActiveMQ.
>> 
>> Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things.  My team is in
>> the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>> ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age.  Hiram has already made good points
>> earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>> technical standpoint going forward.  Another really big thing for us is
>> that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>> doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base.  We
>> need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>> etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>> 
>> I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>> supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>> OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>> instructions.  We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>> there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
>> type.  We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>> include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker.  Lastly, it
>> would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
>> track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>> 
>> In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>> make things even more confusing.  As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
>> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>> causing it to die out.
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
>>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
>>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>>> 
>>>> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
>>> in
>>>> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution.
>>> If
>>>> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>>>> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>>> 
>>>> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
>>>> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>>> 
>>>> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
>>>> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>>> for
>>>> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>>> can
>>>> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>>> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>>> activemq6
>>>> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>>>> community has for their project.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>>>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>>>> factors is not going to pick activemq.  I thought Hiram said this pretty
>>>>> explicitly.  Did I misunderstand?
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>> the
>>>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>> really
>>>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ
will
>>>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making
sure
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad
to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does
it
>>>>>> mean
>>>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the
>>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>>> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
>>>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>> industries,
>>>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>> strength
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>> technology;
>>>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a
>>> presumption
>>>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing
any
>>>>>> valid
>>>>>> merits described.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me
to
>>>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 

Mime
View raw message