activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raul Kripalani <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:40:35 GMT
As an ActiveMQ user and consultant for 7+ years now, I had received the
news of the HornetQ donation quite positively.

AMQ had started to show troubling signs of inactivity. No new exciting
features any longer. Practically no interest in adopting JMS 2.0. In my
head, AMQ had gone into "maintenance mode"  long ago - a fact that's quite
evident if you compare with the vitality of a (somewhat related) community
like Camel.

I confess I have not followed the technical codebase merges, but it did
seem a bit risky to go with v6 for this first release. On a side note, it
doesn't even show seriousness that the v6 wiki page still puts Apollo
forward as core [1].

To me, it feels like a hasty and improvised step. The internals have
changed a great deal, if I'm not mistaken.

Is the community confident enough to go shouting to the world "Hey! This is
our first MAJOR release after 7 years", and have it be a complete success?

Or is the community somewhat making a risky move?

Frankly, given the magnitude of the changes, I would have expected a
timeline of Alpha, Beta and CR releases.  Even if this is not the custom in
this community. Two architectures are being merged, which makes it an
exceptional event. And that deserves exceptional software and release
engineering treatment, if you ask me.

In other words, as an end user, consultant and spokesperson for many
customers, I would expect a series of pre-GA releases with advertisement
and announcements in blogs, online magazines, aggregators, etc. to gather
technical feedback before pushing v6 out the door.


On 25 Mar 2015 22:06, "Tracy Snell" <> wrote:

> I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of
> activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going
> forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue).  The
> current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that
> the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In
> reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side advocating
> a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not going
> the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an insult to
> the non HornetQ side of this community.
> As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ
> donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take
> off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6 that
> includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built in
> the community.  Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to take
> over the ActiveMQ name.
> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <
> <>> 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.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message