activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jamie G." <jamie.goody...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:51:01 GMT
As a follow up question, is there a good reason to not have HornetQ in the name?

It clearly lets users know its different, will help them when
searching for historical solutions to setup/configs.

-J

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jamie G. <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any
> different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
>
> Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming.
> Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference
> clear, and let end users make informed choices down the road.
> Presenting as AMQ6 as is takes the choice away be virtue of how its
> marketed.
>
> -J
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>> I understand how this benefits HornetQ.  And again, I am personally hoping
>> HornetQ does well.
>>
>> The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
>>
>> "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message