activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Burton <bur...@spinn3r.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:40:09 GMT
Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.

I think it’s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.

That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different things.

Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:

> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
> 5.x.
>
> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for HornetQ.
> Yes, it's confusing.
>
> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
> ActiveMQ -
> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch me
> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack me
> in the back of the head ;-).
>
> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were confused
> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693463.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>

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