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 Fri, 27 Mar 2015 02:34:52 GMT

> Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or jump to a competitor?
 What’s your point?
Actually, yes, there are organizations that expand their activemq 
operations based on the current code base. Not sure about new users. I 
heard of users who started to use RabbitMQ.

>> 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 friends)
>> 4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no diversity* and
it will be a one vendor show.
> And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this addressed.   I,
for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF.  
We could possibly get the TomEE and/or Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related.
Any of us could look at some of the other missing features and start working on it.    That
said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get help from both the
current AMQ5 committers as well as new members.     But again, plenty of time and getting
an “M1” out would certainly help.
In theory, maybe. In practice, what I see is that HornetQ is another 
thing that will replace the existing code, i.e. *community*. The way I 
read it is that the existing community members have to choose between 
the hornet "new" way and the highway. Not that there are that many 
outside of one big camp.

I suggested a simple name change, giving all the time necessary for the 
alignment you mentioned and yes, from my point of view it would have 
been ok, it's clear that it's a different thing, but in time, it could 
be aligned and we could have made a decision later based on the state of 
the code and the state of the community. But no, the answer was: "we 
want the name". Which I translated to "we want our project to take over 
the activemq community, and maybe we'll make some concessions along the 
way". That pushed my buttons.

>> 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.
Well, this hasn't been disputed, so nothing to comment on.

>> 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 consensus.
Nor was this.

View raw message