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 20:47:13 GMT
When I get more time to look at 6.0.0 I’ll write up a post from an ActiveMQ
perspective about what’s missing.  What I’m worried about is that ActiveMQ
has a LOT of features (advisories for example) that would need some sort of
support in 6.0.0 to make a migration from 5.0 to 6.0 possible.

The reason we selected AMQ 5.x was because of these features and that they
are *required* for our product to even work.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Petter Nordlander <
Petter.Nordlander@enfo.se> wrote:

> I can only agree.
>
> ActiveMQ 6.0.0, by the name, suggests that it¹s a successor to ActiveMQ,
> which it¹s not as it¹s a successor to HornetQ with some elements from
> ActiveMQ. Great work though, I like the initiative as such.
>
> As long as there is no upgrade path, the name will confuse users. A lot of
> people will try it out just to find that half of the features they were
> used to are gone. I guess a good start would be to clarify things on the
> ActiveMQ homepage.
>
> BR Petter
>
> Den 2015-03-19 20:40 skrev Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com>:
>
> >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 it¹s 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-tp46
> >>93434p4693463.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
> >Š or check out my Google+ profile
> ><https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> ><http://spinn3r.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