activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:42:30 GMT
My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's 
I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are 
presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.

The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular 
vendor and lack of diversity. Until very recently, there were only 2 pmc 
votes coming from outside a particular vendor. That was a concern for 
many on this thread.

HornetQ is considered a replacement of ActiveMQ code base, that it clear 
from this thread. My concerns are the following:
1. a future activemq 6 for the current code base becomes impossible;
2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future of 
activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they wait? )
3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I 
understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good 
4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no 
diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where 
there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it. 
This is, btw, my biggest issue.

Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these 
reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am 
making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It 
is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach 


On 03/26/2015 05:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Still even more baffled.  I haven't seen anything on this list that indicates any of
the new activemq committters  working on activemq6 think that hornetQ is a thing separate
from activemq so how it could be important or not is beyond my comprehension.  You must have
some reason to think this based on other evidence, what is it?
> I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6.  AFAICT it hasn't happened
in 5 years, what's different now?  Who's going to do the work?  It seems to me that some new
people showed up enthusiastic to develop new features and brought some code with them that
no one here has written in the last 5 years, I just don't understand why you aren't welcoming
the initiative and I don't understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover. 
Is someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
> I completely agree with Dan.
> thanks
> david jencks
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the evolution
of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to happen there. I could also argue
that cxf should have been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
>> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same thing (actually
I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny thing is that nobody even tried to deny
that the activemq6 is very important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents
as a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community was desperately shopping
for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that activemq will die. For that reason I consider the
activemq eulogies as disingenuous.
>> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a "new" broker.
There were questions about the future of the v5 broker though. And there was an answer (iirc
from Gary) saying something like "expect that to get very stable". There are some features
requested, yes, contributions are also welcome.
>> So why is this all happening? Again?
>> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new board will take
a look at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can
very well happen in the incubator.
>>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here.   I completely agree with David’s
>>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather
any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not.   Doing it here
means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise
to make sure those issues are addressed.  To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next”
ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as  6.0.0-M1.   We can keep doing M#
versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop
in” replacement for AMQ5.   If it never gets there, fine.  If it does, great!   If the community
decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based
on that code until THAT is ready.   Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a
lot of flexibility and control.
>>>  From my perspective:  do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing
to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced
architecture and such?  No.   It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why
it would happen now.  Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty
much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward.   That says
a lot to me.   That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions
from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either.  So I DO have
a concern about that.
>>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”:   what
are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward?   Are you guys
going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code:  are
you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support
and basic web console and such?
>>> Dan
>>>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>>> Hadrian
>>>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I'm baffled.  I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal
involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing
the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code.  So if that is the intention
the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all
the non-broker bits from activemq 5.  Isn't this what has been happening?  What other possible
integration strategy is there?  I said it before but I'll say it again,  I really don't understand
why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who
have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save
us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible
as we can make it.
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <> wrote:
>>>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement
>>>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to
be taken as
>>>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ.  As several folks have
>>>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ
6 to
>>>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have
>>>>>> very different.  It may still have passed, but there would have been
>>>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path,
and there
>>>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks
>>>>>> the AMQ PMC.  I don't believe that happened (someone please correct
me if I
>>>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message