activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:10:54 GMT
Hi John,

It wasn't so clear to me, I probably missed this part.

Regards
JB

On 03/26/2015 08:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David,
>> can very well happen in the incubator.
>>
>
>
> I think it's important to read Clebert's initial email on the subject of
> donation:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>
> To me, this reads exactly to what occurred here - a new broker.
>
> John
>
>
>
>>
>> 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 <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> 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 been
>>>> very different.  It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>>> 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
>>>> into
>>>> the AMQ PMC.  I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me
>>>> if I
>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>> tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Mime
View raw message