activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Date Thu, 08 Dec 2016 16:11:17 GMT
Gotcha.. that sounds good. Thanks.

On 12/8/16 11:05 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
> I think Christian's issue is not with feature parity being a marketing goal
> but the fact that you aligned a major bump with a feature set rather than
> API changes etc.
>
> we have had this conversation a couple of times and altho its a good idea
> the discussion just goes of on all tangents since everyone wants different
> new functionality. I would suggest raising a Jira per enhancement and
> discuss each individually.
>
> On 8 December 2016 at 15:50, Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Christian-
>>
>> Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
>> goal is to kick off a conversation.
>>
>> I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
>> marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For
>> Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features need
>> to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and prioritize
>> those features.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/8/16 1:52 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
>>> reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
>>> Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
>>> basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
>>> clients.
>>> For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> 2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>>>> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
>>>> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
>>>> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will
>>>> detail
>>>> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>


Mime
View raw message