activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:57:10 GMT
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com> wrote:
> 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.

http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/docs/6.0.0/management.html#management-notifications



>
> 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>



-- 
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message