activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:16:05 GMT
Hi guys,

even if I'm not ActiveMQ PMC, let me express my thoughts:

1/ in order to avoid to disturb the users, I would prefer to avoid to 
have ActiveMQ 7 or whatever for HornetQ. IMHO, the branding provides 
information to the user, and people may be "lost" if we "rename" HornetQ 
as ActiveMQ x.
2/ even if it's not encouraged, it's possible to have subprojects in an 
Apache project. For instance, it's the case in ServiceMix (with bundles, 
and in the past with nmr, etc), and in Karaf (cellar, cave, decanter). 
So I don't see problem to have Apache ActiveMQ Hornet and Apache 
ActiveMQ (and Apache ActiveMQ Appollo which would make sense).
3/ the HornetQ donation requires all the license granting and donation 
rule: just to be sure that all HornetQ contributors/committers are 
really aware of the Apache donation.

Just my $0.02


On 03/25/2015 03:58 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Thanks Hadrian that helps to clarify things.
> Large code donations to the ASF need to start with an
> IP clearance short form especially if my read is right
> below and this large code donation was not entirely authored
> by the ActiveMQ PMC and those with ICLAs on file. Has this
> been done? FYI:
> (note this links to the Incubator and yes I know that
> this wasn’t done through the Incubator but the form is
> still valid)
> Furthermore, have their been discussions about those
> members of the community that were not represented on the
> ActiveMQ PMC? The PMC is the one that releases Apache code,
> and so I’m wondering why the Apache ActiveMQ PMC brought in
> a large code contribution consisting of authorship by people
> that weren’t on the Apache ActiveMQ PMC - not fully out of
> precedent but I would have expected to see an influx of those
> members of HornetQ community on the ActiveMQ PMC if the
> code base is changing direction and the community surrounding
> it is as well. Also if HornetQ is a Redhat product or originally
> was a Redhat product, we need paperwork on file such as a Software
> Grant Agreement (SGA) that helps to cleanly bring large code
> elements into the community:
> Note the above advice are typically things that would have
> happened had this contribution come through the Incubator.
> Finally - Apache doesn’t really do “sub projects” anymore.
> It’s been a long time. The clarification on that is that a project
> can have multiple “products” (aka Lucene which releases Solr,
> Lucene, PyLucene, etc.) but these cannot be distinct projects
> and communities. If they are, they need to be made as such
> by an act of the Board (direct to TLP; spinning out), and/or
> by going through the Incubator.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadrian Zbarcea <>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:45 AM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> Hi Chris,
>> There was a code donation that completed last year. It started on
>> 07/08/2014 (in a thread named: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ)
>> and completed in Oct.
>> HornetQ was a long time project and community of RedHat. The idea, the
>> way I understood it at the time, was to take relevant parts better
>> implemented in HornetQ and rewrite parts of ActiveMQ that were showing
>> their age (Hiram pointed out a few in the other thread yesterday).
>> The HornetQ community opted to have the ActiveMQ pmc instead of the
>> incubator as the sponsoring entity. There are many RH people on the
>> ActiveMQ pmc, the technology space is the same (messaging), it probably
>> was considered a better fit and and easier way to build a community.
>> The HornetQ subproject opted to use the ActiveMQ6 name as the name of
>> the project. However, the subproject is kept independent and there are
>> efforts being made to align some of the features with the current
>> ActiveMQ (ver 5.x). I believe the expectation is that users will migrate
>> to hornetq eventually, based on superior technical merits. That is a
>> migration, not an upgrade, with minimal chances of going back. The
>> ActiveMQ6 name is probably intended to help with that and create the
>> perception that it is the same project.
>> Only a very small part of the current ActiveMQ community is actively
>> involved in HornetQ. There are concerns expressed by a few PMC and ASF
>> members that the activemq6 name creates an confusion. Hornetq is not yet
>> a stable community.
>> The proposal is to change the name for the HornetQ to something that
>> reflects the current status, and not activemq6. It it relevant to note,
>> that with hornetq being named activemq6, the current activemq project
>> has no possibility of having a major version upgrade. It was also noted
>> by community members (non-committers) as well (see Lionel Cons' email)
>> that there is a precedent that didn't succeed as anticipated to name
>> another ActiveMQ subproject (apollo) as activemq 6. The name is now
>> reused for HornetQ.
>> One analogy would be Microsoft for instance donating IIS to the ASF as a
>> httpd subproject and name it httpd3, because the current httpd is old
>> and has no future.
>> Chris, your thoughts on the issue are highly appreciated. This does not
>> provide the complete picture, but it's hopefully clear enough.
>> Hadrian
>> On 03/25/2015 10:07 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
>>> Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
>>> I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
>>> Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>>> ActiveMQ?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob Davies <>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
>>> To: <>
>>> Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>> (was: HornetQ &
>>>> ActiveMQ's next generation)
>>>> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>>>> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>>>> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>>>> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> community.
>>>> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members
>>>> of
>>>> the community.
>>>> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>>>> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>>>> sub-project with its own name.
>>>> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>>>> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>>>> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its
>>>> own
>>>> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>>>> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>>>> Rob
>>>>     	Lionel Cons <>
>>>>    25 March 2015
>>>> 06:58
>>>>    (for the sake of clarity, I
>>>> think that this important subject deserves more
>>>> than the [VOTE]
>>>> thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>>> Apollo (tagline =
>>>> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>>>> as an
>>>> ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>>>> the
>>>> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>>>> 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>>>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>>>> been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>>>> still officially
>>>> advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>>>> In
>>>> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
>>>> The
>>>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>>>> "ActiveMQ's
>>>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>>> For
>>>> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>>>> HornetQ
>>>> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>>> If the
>>>> answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>>>> a
>>>> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>>>> later
>>>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>>> If the answer is no
>>>> (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>>>> and
>>>> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>>>> project
>>>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Lionel
>>>> Cons

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend -

View raw message