activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:41:45 GMT
Chris,

>From a branding perspective. If you peek at the activemq6 repository
or the release candidates for the first release of the code donation
you will see that there is no reference to HornetQ. There has been
trojan work to remove all such references to negate any trademark
issues. Maybe there is something we are missing?

On 26 March 2015 at 03:24, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Christopher.
>
> Based on my reading below - it’s your take that if
> HornetQ went the Incubation route that the Apache ActiveMQ
> community would “die out”?
>
> Is that a correct reading? Is that the view shared
> by the PMC?
>
> I would expect btw, that the current PMC chair should
> include a report by the community on the goings-on during
> this discussion - as I think it’s quite important. If ActiveMQ
> doesn’t have a community around it and if HornetQ is where
> the community of message brokering tech peeps want to move
> to, the thing is, Apache doesn’t pick winners. There can be
> as many competing technology projects that do the same thing
> (how many web servers? how many implementations of JAX-RS?
> how many parsing technologies? etc etc.)
>
> From a branding and naming perspective though, I don’t think
> the ActiveMQ PMC has done its due diligence with respect to
> this HornetQ contribution. Was trademarks@ consulted related
> to this?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ------------------------
> Chris Mattmann
> chris.mattmann@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM
> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of
>>years
>>and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>>last summer.  It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to
>>become
>>the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
>>our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>>generation of ActiveMQ.
>>
>>Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things.  My team is in
>>the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>>ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age.  Hiram has already made good points
>>earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>>technical standpoint going forward.  Another really big thing for us is
>>that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>>doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base.  We
>>need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>>etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>>
>>I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>>supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>>OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>>instructions.  We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>>there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data
>>store
>>type.  We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>>include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker.  Lastly,
>>it
>>would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
>>track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>>
>>In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>>make things even more confusing.  As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
>>the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>>produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>>causing it to die out.
>>
>>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
View raw message