activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Weiqi Gao <weiqi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:32:59 GMT
All,

I agree that at some point (probably before the official ActiveMQ 6.0.0 
release) the fact that ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is the successor of HornetQ 
2.4.5.Final, not ActiveMQ 5.x needs to be publicized.

I'm a HornetQ (via JBoss/WildFly) user, and I only found this out 
through twitter because I follow Clebert already.

There are probably users of HornetQ 2.4.x who are not aware of the 
Apache donation and are wondering why the development activity on the 
HornetQ GitHub repo has slowed down.

--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao@gmail.com
http://weiqigao.blogspot.com

On 3/19/2015 3:15 PM, Petter Nordlander wrote:
> I can only agree.
>
> ActiveMQ 6.0.0, by the name, suggests that it¹s a successor to ActiveMQ,
> which it¹s not as it¹s a successor to HornetQ with some elements from
> ActiveMQ. Great work though, I like the initiative as such.
>
> As long as there is no upgrade path, the name will confuse users. A lot of
> people will try it out just to find that half of the features they were
> used to are gone. I guess a good start would be to clarify things on the
> ActiveMQ homepage.
>
> BR Petter
>
> Den 2015-03-19 20:40 skrev Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com>:
>
>> Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
>> HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
>>
>> I think it¹s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
>> lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
>>
>> That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
>> So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different
>> things.
>>
>> Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
>> perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
>>> 5.x.
>>>
>>> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for
>>> HornetQ.
>>> Yes, it's confusing.
>>>
>>> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
>>> ActiveMQ -
>>> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch
>>> me
>>> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack
>>> me
>>> in the back of the head ;-).
>>>
>>> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were
>>> confused
>>> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
>>> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp46
>>> 93434p4693463.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> Š or check out my Google+ profile
>> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> <http://spinn3r.com>
>


Mime
View raw message