activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:16:19 GMT
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:

> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David,
> can very well happen in the incubator.

I think it's important to read Clebert's initial email on the subject of

To me, this reads exactly to what occurred here - a new broker.


> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
> Hadrian
> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I'm baffled.  I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal
>> involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if
>> wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in
>> hornetQ code.  So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy
>> to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker
>> bits from activemq 5.  Isn't this what has been happening?  What other
>> possible integration strategy is there?  I said it before but I'll say it
>> again,  I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we
>> just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write
>> a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us,
>> let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and
>> is as compatible as we can make it.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <> wrote:
>>  5.x needs a new core.
>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement
>>> here.
>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be
>>> taken as
>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ.  As several folks have
>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>> very different.  It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and
>>> there
>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks
>>> into
>>> the AMQ PMC.  I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me
>>> if I
>>> have it wrong).
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> tp4693781p4693856.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

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