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 14:50:32 GMT
Hi Gary,

Thanks. I just meant to contact trademarks with respect to
branding - the name HornetQ whether removed or not has caused
confusion here since it seems to be a pre-existing project.
It’s great that the PMC or committers have looked into this
and done due diligence but at the end of the day checking
with trademarks@ is the right step since that’s what the
committee is here for - to vet these things. Again this is
a standard step in Incubation that needs to be covered.

Cheers,
Chris




-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 4:41 AM
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>Chris,
>
>From a branding perspective. If you peek at the activemq6 repository
>or the release candidates for the first release of the code donation
>you will see that there is no reference to HornetQ. There has been
>trojan work to remove all such references to negate any trademark
>issues. Maybe there is something we are missing?
>
>On 26 March 2015 at 03:24, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
>> Thanks Christopher.
>>
>> Based on my reading below - it’s your take that if
>> HornetQ went the Incubation route that the Apache ActiveMQ
>> community would “die out”?
>>
>> Is that a correct reading? Is that the view shared
>> by the PMC?
>>
>> I would expect btw, that the current PMC chair should
>> include a report by the community on the goings-on during
>> this discussion - as I think it’s quite important. If ActiveMQ
>> doesn’t have a community around it and if HornetQ is where
>> the community of message brokering tech peeps want to move
>> to, the thing is, Apache doesn’t pick winners. There can be
>> as many competing technology projects that do the same thing
>> (how many web servers? how many implementations of JAX-RS?
>> how many parsing technologies? etc etc.)
>>
>> From a branding and naming perspective though, I don’t think
>> the ActiveMQ PMC has done its due diligence with respect to
>> this HornetQ contribution. Was trademarks@ consulted related
>> to this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Chris Mattmann
>> chris.mattmann@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM
>> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of
>>>years
>>>and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>>>last summer.  It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to
>>>become
>>>the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and
>>>overall
>>>our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>>>generation of ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>>Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things.  My team is
>>>in
>>>the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>>>ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age.  Hiram has already made good
>>>points
>>>earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>>>technical standpoint going forward.  Another really big thing for us is
>>>that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>>>doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base.
>>>We
>>>need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>>>etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>>>
>>>I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>>>supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>>>OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>>>instructions.  We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>>>there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data
>>>store
>>>type.  We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>>>include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker.  Lastly,
>>>it
>>>would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we
>>>can
>>>track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>>>
>>>In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>>>make things even more confusing.  As Andy pointed out, having everyone
>>>in
>>>the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>>>produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>>>causing it to die out.
>>>
>>>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com>
>>>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.
>>>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 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-generation-
>>>> >>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>
>>



Mime
View raw message