activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:52:08 GMT
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:

> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>
> Note we recently went through a similar thought
> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>
> Here are a few reasons:
>
> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>
> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
> already.
>
> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
> the IP clearance.
>
> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>
> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>
> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
> are ASF or IPMC members
> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
> out during Incubation.
>
> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>

Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past
and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ.

Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a
JMS 2.0 implementation.  Heck, that's why I went through the pain of
ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see
it happen.  I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0
implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I believe
all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet the
feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it.
While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that
point?  It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to
release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while).

With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ
project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's
ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for
ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via
vote).  Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut
releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors.

The sticking point's going to come down to name.  I don't see Red Hat
shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name
would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache
isn't even referenced on the site.

If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat
in as a mentor to get you going.

John


>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com>
> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
> >Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
> >naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
> >change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
> >succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> >Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
> >that
> >direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad to be
> >having this discussion.
> >
> >The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
> >rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it
> >mean
> >that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
> >
> >So, let's put this back into perspective.
> >
> >We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the
> >ActiveMQ
> >community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
> >that
> >Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
> >
> >ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
> >mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
> >and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
> >
> >Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength
> >of
> >technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
> >ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a presumption
> >that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
> >
> >Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
> >merits described.
> >
> >I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to
> >understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >View this message in context:
> >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-
> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
> >ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
> >Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>

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