activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:32:22 GMT
Ok, so here's a question.

For various reasons I interact with management types in various 
companies. On two occasions, because of my affiliation with ActiveMQ I 
have been asked for advice. They've been told by sales/marketing people 
over whom the PMC has no influence that activemq6 is the future of 
activemq, is faster, better, you name it, and a certain company stands 
behind it and has all the consultants necessary to help them with the 

What should my answer be?

If I believed that the community would eventually rally around 
activemq6, I would be ok too. But I don't know that yet, and from past 
experience I am quite skeptical. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Bonus question: (aside from being ok with 6.x) what name to you think is 
better: activemq-6.x or something like activemq-hornet-<version>? I.e. 
if you were to choose/vote how would you vote?

Maybe we should take this in a separate [discuss] thread. And btw, these 
kind of discussions clarify things and are in general a good thing for 
the community.


On 03/24/2015 12:18 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>> Precisely. That's what I was trying to say.
>> So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted, the consensus
is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use a different name (activemq-hornet
or something).
> Well, no.   I’m not RH but I feel that the 6.0.0-M# number and sticking with ActiveMQ
naming is fine.  :-)
> Dan
>> True?
>> Hadrian
>> On 03/24/2015 12:02 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
>>> Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
>>> made the most sense here.
>>> Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.
>>> When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
>>> Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
>>> the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to
>>> be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo
>>> instead of Karaf 5.0.
>>> My 2 cents CAD,
>>> Jamie
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <> wrote:
>>>> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
>>>> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>>>>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ
>>>>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can
>>>>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to
be an
>>>>> upgrade of activemq.
>>>>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>>>>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied
>>>>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very
>>>>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>>>>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>>>>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>>>>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed
>>>>>> a member of the community.
>>>>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would
>>>>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon
>>>>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides
>>>>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned
at the
>>>>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>>>>>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>>>>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out,
>>>>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that
>>>>>> source brings.
>>>>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up
with a
>>>>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>>>>>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1,
>>>>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community
to try
>>>>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise
>>>>>> subsequent milestones.
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus
>>>>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like
to continue
>>>>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ
>>>>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow
up with
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle.
Personally, I
>>>>>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite
in Camel when we
>>>>>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful
process. Speaking
>>>>>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least
3 years that
>>>>>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different
>>>>>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast
majority of the
>>>>>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the
rest of the
>>>>>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing
into the next
>>>>>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated
in the
>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much
as I like the
>>>>>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse
>>>>>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x
wagon and its
>>>>>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would
reach a "dead
>>>>>>>>> end".
>>>>>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly,
I don't know
>>>>>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience,
I choose to
>>>>>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community.
The fact that it
>>>>>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that
it must use the
>>>>>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the
duty of
>>>>>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others:
smx kernel
>>>>>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers
in the
>>>>>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities.
>>>>>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project
is growing well
>>>>>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples
where it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a
different name
>>>>>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own.
This way it's
>>>>>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but
then address
>>>>>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration,
near drop in
>>>>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a
different project.
>>>>>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn
into amq-xxx seems a
>>>>>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes,
showing my age
>>>>>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code
and adapting from
>>>>>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits?
My limited
>>>>>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached
a dead end and
>>>>>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement,
first Apollo
>>>>>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood,
and now
>>>>>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting
committers is
>>>>>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better
way than by
>>>>>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather
than just argue….
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Now here lies the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that it captures the intent well. That
also creates an
>>>>>>>>>>> expectation from the users and sort of a promise
from the activemq
>>>>>>>>>>> pmc, amplified by the vendors' marketing (well,
exactly one in this
>>>>>>>>>>> case). The same promise has been made with apollo.
>>>>>>>>>>> I am less concerned with the rewrite. To me that
is not an issue. If
>>>>>>>>>>> smaller or larger parts are rewritten but maintain
>>>>>>>>>>> feature parity, it is an evolution of the same
>>>>>>>>>>> I am however more concerned with the ability
of the activemq6
>>>>>>>>>>> podling/subproject to build a diverse community.
So far I don't see
>>>>>>>>>>> encouraging signs. My fear is that the result
will be alienation of
>>>>>>>>>>> the more diverse activemq 5.x community (still
less diverse than it
>>>>>>>>>>> should be) and turn activemq into a one company
>>>>>>>>>>> So far it looks it looks to me that the perception
card was played,
>>>>>>>>>>> with the choice of name. It *sounds* like activemq6
the evolution of
>>>>>>>>>>> activemq. How will the current pmc ensure that
this is really gonna
>>>>>>>>>>> be the case? (fwiw, I do get questions about
the relationship
>>>>>>>>>>> between amq6 and 5 already, and for the life
of me I don't know how
>>>>>>>>>>> to answer).
>>>>>>>>>>> Choosing a different name, as I think Rob suggested
too, would have
>>>>>>>>>>> made this a moot point.
>>>>>>>>>>> My $0.02,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:07 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures
intent perfectly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think the consensus is to go with
ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead and cut a new RC in the next day
or so. We will also add
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> content the website so users are clear
that currently there isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and
ActiveMQ 6. We will then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA to map out a migration path post
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM,
artnaseef <>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please help me to understand
how this would go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2,
etc until when? Until we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement
for 5.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After that, then we simply drop
the -M# (i.e. release the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.0.0)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.

View raw message