activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:53:15 GMT
Art,

I don't think anyone is planning to deprecate 5.x support right now.  I
think it will stick around for some time and it's fine to have both
versions supported.

Also, the JBoss name is not an Apache name, it is a RH product.  It should
have no effect on what the community here decides to use for version
numbers.



On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Martyn Taylor <mtaylor@redhat.com> wrote:

> +1.
>
> From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not
> necessarily the details of how we get there.  I agree there are some
> discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what
> needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base.  But I
> think we need a clear vision before we can set out a road map of how to get
> there.
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
>
> > Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making
> the
> > direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight
> 5.x,
> > but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
> >
> >
> > On your commends about JBoss.
> >
> > I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and
> its
> > versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors
> > re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache
> > Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.
> >
> > Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own
> > versions, such as:
> >
> > Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
> > Apache Kafka with Confluent
> > Apache Ignite with GridGain
> >
> > They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the
> > upstream Apache projects.
> >
> > On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a
> > RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a
> > company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from
> > their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is
> based
> > on ActiveMQ 5.X.
> >
> > Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning
> should
> > be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this
> > discussion IMO.
> >
> > On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your
> > question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it
> > switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions
> of
> > Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others
> > transitioning from their previous version.
> >
> > Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:
> >
> > * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of
> > the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ
> 5.X (
> > https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/
> > reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
> > * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/
> > author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
> > * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
> >  * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
> >  * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <art@amlinv.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > -1  I think we need to slow down.
> > >
> > > While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> > > single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is
> > made.
> > > Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> > > deprecating AMQ 5 now.
> > >
> > > For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered
> at
> > > this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly
> methodical,
> > > then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the
> name
> > > ActiveMQ 6.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it
> > deserves
> > > the greatest of attention and care.
> > >
> > > Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> > > * What is the full list of features needed?
> > > * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> > > * How stable is Artemis?
> > > * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
> > >
> > > Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
> > >
> > > Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> > > support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> > > transition for customers as possible.
> > >
> > > Please start to enumerate these points.
> > >
> > > BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss
> > AMQ 7"
> > > is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even
> more
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to
> the
> > > vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree
> > with
> > > having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware
> of
> > > these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
> > >
> > > I'll post the link there now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> > f2368404.html
> >
> >
>

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