Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of e.semog@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: e.semog@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKF+bsorF3gBnbm5mU57sbphrg4PNXoofwBTbd_Mm-mLLOoGrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALznzY7nEWSu2rk5UkJJDkD4jsMke--LjC9Drg0RY0_qWXYN_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGZ-RDL1kxKFbdawpb6uyAMy8RzfQB8kmJ-TjUVHA=Z0ps8N2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKF+bsqSLBQ8YnJKMHjpkH0zkcuLkF2ui3BFXDVQ8gEbHAb9SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGeZ+bjptCE1TFnhMsRbP=pBjprLSDsGz30fkX5HV5vk5mLA7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKF+bsorF3gBnbm5mU57sbphrg4PNXoofwBTbd_Mm-mLLOoGrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:26:36 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAGeZ+bh3wn0srZ6bA96Y_QiLNaoHw91FrQ6v9s4TB4G9ARtAUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should ActiveMQ {CodeName} Support Backward
 Compatibility with HornetQ...
From: Jim Gomes <jgomes@apache.org>
To: ActiveMQ Dev <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff25134f7f13e0513c92948

--e89a8ff25134f7f13e0513c92948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Then I would say yes, we should support them through a transition plan. It
might be helpful to lay out a time line of which version this support will
be removed. That gives fair notice to everyone involved.

>From what I've seen in other messages, it seems like this support is there,
or almost there, already. Is that correct?
 On Apr 15, 2015 11:20 AM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would say it's a short term for older clients being able to connect
> via deprecated.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jim Gomes <jgomes@apache.org> wrote:
> > There's a difference between should and can. Is this a short term support
> > via deprecated and planned obsolescence, or is it long term first class
> > support? I don't really know much about what the HornetQ support entails.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 9:18 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I think it doesn't hurt to do it. it's only beneficial.
> >>
> >>
> >> The concern probably started from this Pull Request:
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/205
> >>
> >> Which we will merge it.. I will just extend the change to coupe with
> >> old clients.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Yep.  I think supporting old HornetQ clients should be a goal too.  If
> >> > it's not too much effort will open our projects to more users which I
> >> > think is a good thing.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM, James Carman
> >> > <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> >> >> It has come to light that some folks feel that ActiveMQ {CodeName}
> >> >> should support backward compatibility with HornetQ.  I don't think
> >> >> this has been discussed specifically within the community yet, so I
> >> >> thought I'd bring it up.
> >> >>
> >> >> James
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Hiram Chirino
> >> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>

--e89a8ff25134f7f13e0513c92948--