activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Taylor <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:27:33 GMT
+1 and we have already started mining some of the amq5 code and this
will continue. Whats great about HornetQ is its engine, its threading
model, io and journal. take this core and take the functionality that
amq5 has and I think you will end up with a great project and also allow
a path for future development for the ActiveMQ community and so the name
should reflect that in one way or another. I dont see this as any
different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve.

On 24/03/15 18:53, David Jencks wrote:
> I think that a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration that activemq has no long
term future.   My understanding of the situation is quite limited, but since there's already
been one attempt to replace the broker (apollo) and no attempt to modernize the existing broker,
I'd guess that it is not feasible. After apollo, I haven't seen the existing amq community
start a new broker project inside activemq, it's been maybe a couple years, so I expect it
won't happen.  so, sure hornetQ could be a different project, mine some external code from
amq, and wait for amq to die.  As I tried to indicate before, the only real way forward I
see is for the existing amq community to get behind making the former hornetQ codebase a real
amq 5 replacement.  What if you put the same amount of energy into adapting some amq code
to hornetQ as you do objecting to it's presence?    I don't understand why everyone isn't
saying, "wow, someone just gave us a many-dev-years of code advanced broker, loo
 at all the work I don't have to do!!, what can I do to help take advantage of it?"
> thanks
> david jencks
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:36 PM, artnaseef <> wrote:
>> What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6?  That question keeps
>> coming to mind.
>> At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical
>> perspective.  But considering the community and Apache involvement, the
>> answer to that question becomes more complex.
>> Naming releases of HornetQ at activemq-6.0.0-M1 presumes that HornetQ will
>> succeed to replace ActiveMQ, and acts as a warning to all activemq users
>> that the change is coming.  But what if it does not succeed?  Either on
>> technical merits or on building community?
>> The right path from the beginning has always been the incubator path.  Let
>> HornetQ prove itself as an Apache project and viable alternative to ActiveMQ
>> without any attempt at using the ActiveMQ brand.
>> Since HornetQ has been donated into ActiveMQ, we could certainly look to
>> take some of the code from HornetQ and merge it into the existing ActiveMQ
>> code base.
>> No matter how we move forward, the issue of building community and HornetQ
>> proving itself is the same.  So, the question then becomes - what benefit is
>> there to ActiveMQ and the ActiveMQ community?  If we cannot enumerate a
>> valid benefit for the community, then it does not belong there.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message