activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:26:55 GMT
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