activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 03:20:36 GMT
+1. I was definitely recommending this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:26 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>This is not a view shared by everybody.
>The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
>in the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
>solution. If hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from
>the activemq community will jump boat. Who knows.
>But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
>the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
>the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>for the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction.
>They can choose to be as close or distant they want from the current
>activemq features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards
>what activemq6 should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision
>the hornetq community has for their project.
>On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>factors is not going to pick activemq.  I thought Hiram said this pretty
>>explicitly.  Did I misunderstand?
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <> wrote:
>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a
>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>> 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:
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message