activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Spam: 5.0] AMQ 4.2 status
Date Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:34:35 GMT
Given that a few things have changed in 4.2.x we'll be renaming that
5.0 as the OpenWire protocol will be enhanced, the code will move to
Java 5 and other things are changing (such as dispatching, spool to
disk stuff and so forth).

So if you can wait a month or so, I'd go with 5.0, otherwise go for a
4.1.x release which should all be binary compatible with each other.


On 2/23/07, drvillo <f.vivoli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob
>
> the service is announced here:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/info/stats/hostcount/hostcount++/
>
> background here:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/hostcount/
>
> What I'm interested mainly in a new release is the stability
> of Kaha (I've just posted on this).
> Java 5 would be nice to have, but it's quite more important
> for example that interfaces don't change between 4.1 and 4.2,
> there's no point in releasing a long running service which will
> already have binary incompatibilities next month...
>
> thanks for the reply anyway, I would just like to know which
> moves to take.
>
> Cheers
> Francesco
>
>
> rajdavies wrote:
> >
> > Hi Francesco,
> >
> > just out interest what's the service you're releasing?
> >
> > We are currently debating about providing another maintenance version
> > of the 4.1 branch, whilst continue to add enhancements in to trunk,
> > with the aim to be the next major release to version 5.0
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Rob Davies
> > http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2007, at 8:39 AM, drvillo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I'm about to release an alpha version of my service.
> >> Since I had the impression that 4.2 was going to be released
> >> soon I've been postponing the date in the hope to release
> >> with
> >> - a more stable version of AMQ (currently it's packaged with a
> >> month old
> >> trunk rev.)
> >> - kaha storing indexes on the filesystem rather than in memory
> >> - and to get rid of this  backport-util-concurrent.jar
> >>
> >> Now I read that the jar has been tossed out, but how
> >> about the quality of the codebase?
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot for the feedback, and congratulations
> >> for the progresses, I'm seeing AMQ getting better at each
> >> checkout:)
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Francesco
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/AMQ-4.2-status-
> >> tf3277616s2354.html#a9115227
> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/AMQ-4.2-status-tf3277616s2354.html#a9117116
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Mime
View raw message