activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:10:22 GMT

> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well
happen in the incubator.

Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here.   I completely agree with David’s response.

In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather any of
the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not.   Doing it here means
that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise
to make sure those issues are addressed.  To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next”
ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.

I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as  6.0.0-M1.   We can keep doing M# versions until
it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement
for AMQ5.   If it never gets there, fine.  If it does, great!   If the community decides that
going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based on that code
until THAT is ready.   Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility
and control.

From my perspective:  do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to spend the time
and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture
and such?  No.   It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would happen
now.  Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty much stated that
the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward.   That says a lot to me. 
 That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from
those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either.  So I DO have a concern
about that. 

Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”:   what are your proposals
and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward?   Are you guys going to take up
all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?

And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code:  are you willing
to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic
web console and such?

Dan



> 
> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
> 
> Hadrian
> 
> 
> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I'm baffled.  I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement
with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker
was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code.  So if that is the intention the obvious
integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker
bits from activemq 5.  Isn't this what has been happening?  What other possible integration
strategy is there?  I said it before but I'll say it again,  I really don't understand why
everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have
the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us,
let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible
as we can make it.
>> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>> 
>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>> 
>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ.  As several folks have
>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>> 
>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>> very different.  It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>> 
>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>>> the AMQ PMC.  I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>>> have it wrong).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com


Mime
View raw message