activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:43:07 GMT
Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message