activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:16:15 GMT
I was just speaking to the WHY such a drastic change is needed.  Not
the, 'will it succeed' :)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
> activemq6 and the future of activemq.
>
> Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract a
> community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking at
> all about technical merits. Apollo has its brilliant lines of code and so
> does HornetQ, I am sure.
>
> After all that's been said, my opinion and advice would be for you the
> HornetQ crowd to ask the pmc for a rename. My understanding is that the
> intent is not to morph the two projects, but keep HornetQ as a better
> alternative/replacement for ActiveMQ in the future. If that is true, staying
> honest and not blurring the branding lines, shows your pride with the better
> project and you'd have to work hard to convince users that you have
> something better to offer and grow a community.
>
> Keep in mind that the ActiveMQ PMC is just the sponsoring entity, that is
> responsible to guide hornetq through the process of incubation.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 03/24/2015 03:27 PM, Andy Taylor wrote:
>>
>> +1 and we have already started mining some of the amq5 code and this
>> will continue. Whats great about HornetQ is its engine, its threading
>> model, io and journal. take this core and take the functionality that
>> amq5 has and I think you will end up with a great project and also allow
>> a path for future development for the ActiveMQ community and so the name
>> should reflect that in one way or another. I dont see this as any
>> different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve.
>>
>> On 24/03/15 18:53, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration that
>>> activemq has no long term future.   My understanding of the situation is
>>> quite limited, but since there's already been one attempt to replace the
>>> broker (apollo) and no attempt to modernize the existing broker, I'd guess
>>> that it is not feasible. After apollo, I haven't seen the existing amq
>>> community start a new broker project inside activemq, it's been maybe a
>>> couple years, so I expect it won't happen.  so, sure hornetQ could be a
>>> different project, mine some external code from amq, and wait for amq to
>>> die.  As I tried to indicate before, the only real way forward I see is for
>>> the existing amq community to get behind making the former hornetQ codebase
>>> a real amq 5 replacement.  What if you put the same amount of energy into
>>> adapting some amq code to hornetQ as you do objecting to it's presence?    I
>>> don't understand why everyone isn't saying, "wow, someone just gave us a
>>> many-dev-years of code advanced broker, lo
>
> o
>
>>   k
>>   at all the work I don't have to do!!, what can I do to help take
>> advantage of it?"
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:36 PM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6?  That question keeps
>>>> coming to mind.
>>>>
>>>> At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical
>>>> perspective.  But considering the community and Apache involvement, the
>>>> answer to that question becomes more complex.
>>>>
>>>> Naming releases of HornetQ at activemq-6.0.0-M1 presumes that HornetQ
>>>> will
>>>> succeed to replace ActiveMQ, and acts as a warning to all activemq users
>>>> that the change is coming.  But what if it does not succeed?  Either on
>>>> technical merits or on building community?
>>>>
>>>> The right path from the beginning has always been the incubator path.
>>>> Let
>>>> HornetQ prove itself as an Apache project and viable alternative to
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> without any attempt at using the ActiveMQ brand.
>>>>
>>>> Since HornetQ has been donated into ActiveMQ, we could certainly look to
>>>> take some of the code from HornetQ and merge it into the existing
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> code base.
>>>>
>>>> No matter how we move forward, the issue of building community and
>>>> HornetQ
>>>> proving itself is the same.  So, the question then becomes - what
>>>> benefit is
>>>> there to ActiveMQ and the ActiveMQ community?  If we cannot enumerate a
>>>> valid benefit for the community, then it does not belong there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693742.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino

Mime
View raw message