Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jbertram@redhat.com designates
 209.132.183.39 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Message-ID: <1930832445.671069.1429125561751.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <552EB59C.6070009@256bit.org>
References: 
 <CALznzY6BMWE0+b3tbiBF25KfL_jLP+ZdDm2GhYx8KY82UkAxcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <552EB59C.6070009@256bit.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Topic: ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...
Thread-Index: g+FvGSDD6LApNVv5xEmBqMjvMkkE0g==

James, is this thread meant to discuss:

  A) the existing features from ActiveMQ 5.x that ActiveMQ {CodeName} would=
 need to implement really be considered the next generation of ActiveMQ
  B) the features that don't exist today in ActiveMQ that people would like=
 to see in the next generation (i.e. in ActiveMQ {CodeName})
  C) both 'A' and 'B'

?


Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Sch=C3=B6chlin" <ms@256bit.org>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:01:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ {CodeName} Must-Have Features...

Hi,

my whishlist:
(with descending importance level)

- stability and resilience!!!!!!!
- simplified configuration, (it should be difficult to create unstable
configurations)
- easy and very stable out-of-the-box clustering without centralized
components
  (i.e. like leveldb but without running a dedicated zookeeper instance)
- a very good administration interface which operates on the
configuration files
- good operation system packages and integration
  (RPM, DEB and MSI packages )
- a good puppet module

Regards
Marc

Am 15.04.2015 um 17:56 schrieb James Carman:
> In order for ActiveMQ {CodeName} to take over as the next generation
> of ActiveMQ, it obviously must have some level of feature parity with
> the existing ActiveMQ 5.x (or 6.x if it's released before that
> transition) offering.  We should come up with some level of a roadmap
> together about which features are required.  Thus far, the only
> big-ticket items that have been addressed are:
>
> 1.  The OpenWire protocol is supported
> 2.  Auto-creation of destinations (mostly complete).
>
> This is obviously not all of what the existing ActiveMQ is all about.
> What other features are folks wanting to see in the next generation
> ActiveMQ?
>
> James

--=20
GPG encryption available: 0x670DCBEC/pool.sks-keyservers.net
(https://www.256bit.org/keys/mschoechlin.pub.asc)