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 22:53:09 GMT
What do you mean the ActiveMQ has zero plans?


Do you mean Apache ActiveMQ has zero plans? Seriously Dan?
Do you speak for the PMC?

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:36 PM
To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's
>>I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are
>>presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
>> 
>> The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular
>>vendor and lack of diversity. Until very recently, there were only 2 pmc
>>votes coming from outside a particular vendor. That was a concern for
>>many on this thread.
>> 
>> HornetQ is considered a replacement of ActiveMQ code base, that it
>>clear from this thread. My concerns are the following:
>> 1. a future activemq 6 for the current code base becomes impossible;
>
>Well, an activemq6 based on the current code base is something I’d
>consider highly improbable so I wouldn’t consider it a huge issue.  In
>any case, it would only become “impossible” once the 6.0.0 final release
>is done which COULD be a long ways off.
>
>> 2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future
>>of activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they
>>wait? )
>
>Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or
>jump to a competitor?  What’s your point?
>
>> 3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I
>>understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good
>>friends)
>> 4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no
>>diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
>
>And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this
>addressed.   I, for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the
>RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF.   We could possibly get the TomEE and/or
>Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related. Any of us could look
>at some of the other missing features and start working on it.    That
>said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get
>help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members.
>But again, plenty of time and getting an “M1” out would certainly help.
>
>Dan
>
>
>> 5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where
>>there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it.
>>This is, btw, my biggest issue.
>> 
>> Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these
>>reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am
>>making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It
>>is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach
>>consensus.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Hadrian
>> 
>> On 03/26/2015 05:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> Still even more baffled.  I haven't seen anything on this list that
>>>indicates any of the new activemq committters  working on activemq6
>>>think that hornetQ is a thing separate from activemq so how it could be
>>>important or not is beyond my comprehension.  You must have some reason
>>>to think this based on other evidence, what is it?
>>> 
>>> I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6.
>>>AFAICT it hasn't happened in 5 years, what's different now?  Who's
>>>going to do the work?  It seems to me that some new people showed up
>>>enthusiastic to develop new features and brought some code with them
>>>that no one here has written in the last 5 years, I just don't
>>>understand why you aren't welcoming the initiative and I don't
>>>understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover.  Is
>>>someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
>>> 
>>> I completely agree with Dan.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> 
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo
>>>>hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for
>>>>something to happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have
>>>>been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
>>>> 
>>>> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same
>>>>thing (actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny
>>>>thing is that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very
>>>>important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as
>>>>a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community
>>>>was desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that
>>>>activemq will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as
>>>>disingenuous.
>>>> 
>>>> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a
>>>>"new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker
>>>>though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like
>>>>"expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested,
>>>>yes, contributions are also welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> So why is this all happening? Again?
>>>> 
>>>> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new
>>>>board will take a look at this and will provide some guidance.
>>>>Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest,
>>>>>>David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here.   I completely agree with
>>>>>David’s response.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community
>>>>>as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important
to
>>>>>address or not.   Doing it here means that not only do we get to
>>>>>prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make
>>>>>sure those issues are addressed.  To me, that’s the best way to make
>>>>>sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as  6.0.0-M1.   We can keep
>>>>>doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels
>>>>>it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5.   If it
>>>>>never gets there, fine.  If it does, great!   If the community
>>>>>decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we
>>>>>start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready.   Until the
>>>>>“6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and
>>>>>control.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From my perspective:  do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors
>>>>>willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase
>>>>>forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such?  No.
>>>>> It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would
>>>>>happen now.  Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors”
>>>>>have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is
>>>>>the better way forward.   That says a lot to me.   That said, if they
>>>>>really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions
>>>>>from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened
>>>>>either.  So I DO have a concern about that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”:
>>>>>what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can
>>>>>move forward?   Are you guys going to take up all the new work like
>>>>>JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>>>> 
>>>>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted
>>>>>code:  are you willing to start helping to add the missing features
>>>>>like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 <art@artnaseef.com>
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.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-ne
>>>>>>>>xt-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>
>-- 
>Daniel Kulp
>dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



Mime
View raw message