activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:25:31 GMT
+1 on that.. this is my preference.

We didn't name it M1 because I didn't know it was possible within
apache naming conventions.

With our current planning we would release something in 3 months that
would include JDBC support + OSGI and other things.. I don't think we
are years away from completing a full path. we are talking about
months here.

So keep things with M1, M2.. until we are ready for a full replacement
would be a great option

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
> How is this any different than say  CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x?     Both versions use the
same maven coordinates.    Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then
lets keep going that direction.  That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement,
then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar.
    I guess that would be my preference.   Until we have all the migration issues hammered
out and and feature replacements in place,  (and OSGi support)  I’m kind uncomfortable calling
it 6.0.   However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people
working on it.
> Dan
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <> wrote:
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users.  And, I'm especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
>> maven central.
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> -
> Talend Community Coder -

Clebert Suconic

View raw message