activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
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 <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:26 AM
To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
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.
>
>Cheers,
>Hadrian
>
>
>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 <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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-ge
>>>neration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>



Mime
View raw message