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 Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:11:00 GMT
Hi Jim,

I did request this from the project, so yes, +1.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski <>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM
To: Apache Board <>
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>I can't recall, but did we (the board) request a special report
>from AMQ next meeting to discuss this? If not, maybe we should.
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dain Sundstrom <> wrote:
>> My 2 cents.
>> When it comes to code, I find that there is a lot more concern when
>>things are talked about in the abstract.  Once you have the new code and
>>show how it is integrated, if it is way better than the current stuff,
>>then there really isn’t a problem.  If it is not better, or just a big
>>side step, it should be obvious, and you change it or abandon the
>>effort. (code is always the simple part)
>> As for the community, we’ve had similar problems in the past
>>(especially in Geronimo).  The solution is to get more people involved
>>in coding.  IMO, without that, there is not much that can be done to
>>reduce the influence of a single company (or clique).  In my experience,
>>adding more PMC members isn’t help much if they are not actively coding
>>(other then people realize the PMC list has virtually no traffic).  The
>>ones that code make “on-the-ground” decisions that really move the
>>project.  The big problem is that it is difficult to new grassroots
>>coders and this is doubly true when you have a community that is
>>responsive to problems, because they remove the desire to “fix your own
>> That said, I agree with Rich, invite more people to the PMC, and if
>>names are a problem, change them.  You can always change the name back
>>later if everyone likes the new stuff better.
>> -dain
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ.  So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>> perspective.
>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>the perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>project, replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
>>>version. This is how it's been described to me by several different
>>>members of the project community, and their perception is that this has
>>>been done without the consent of the community. This is, of course, a
>>>fairly serious accusation.
>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>>>on who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>affiliation - an even more serious accusation.
>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>imported into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by
>>>virtue of a majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>that their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>>>the next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I
>>>see that this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that
>>>the code be taken to the incubator.)
>>> -- 
>>> Rich Bowen - - @rbowen
>>> - @apachecon

View raw message