activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: Special Board Report
Date Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:14:52 GMT
On Apr 20, 2015 9:36 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <>
> > Yes. Almost exclusively done by the HornetQ team (going by the commit
logs and the team page at HornetQ’s website).
> >>
> That was done this way because we were getting ready for the IP
> Clearance and what was needed for the first release.
> As part of the IP clearance process we were supposed to get rid of
> Cat-X dependencies (the JMS API JAR was LGPL for instance... so we
> needed to find a replacement which was completed by John Ament here.

Its worth pointing out in my opinion that even though I've been named a
JBoss Champion recently, RedHat doesnt pay my salary and had nothing to do
with that API JAR.


> >> We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
> >> serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
> >> ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
> >> what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
> >> consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc…
> >
> > All hard work and looks awesome. Impressive effort. What bothers me is
the we part. The we isn’t the ActiveMQ community as a whole, it’s the
formerly HornetQ community subset. A shocking lack of diversity on the
people front, not the code front.
> As I said.. that was just the first release... there's a lot more to
> be done.. and we have been pretty open about inviting people to join
> the effort.
> The open wire implementation for instance is the very first
> implementation.. and it needs to be taken further.
> the docs work was a direct conversion of what we had... that was also
> part of the IP clearance.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message