activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>
Subject Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:48:40 GMT
I don't think either Justin or I were trying to boil the complexities of
evaluating a software product's fit for an organization into a couple
checkboxes or a couple-question flow chart; the data type of these
decisions is double[], not boolean.

We're just giving you information to evaluate against your organization's
needs; the actual evaluation of it is still yours to do, in the context of
your organization's specific needs.

Justin is right about the fact that the 1.0 version number doesn't mean
it's brand new code (though some of it is), and a risk-averse organization
might shun both Artemis 1.0 and ActiveMQ 5.12.x due to their newness while
preferring earlier versions of HornetQ or ActiveMQ (5.10.x, for example).

But to the Artemis community, BN's original question is a good one: what
are Artemis's strengths (current or planned) and why would people who
aren't migrating from HornetQ choose to move to it?  We've all been hearing
that Artemis is the new hotness, but what's hot about the hotness?  The
fact that this question is getting asked at all means you guys are missing
important content from your wiki pages...
On Nov 12, 2015 12:45 PM, "Justin Bertram" <jbertram@apache.com> wrote:

> The point I was trying to make was not what you described in your #2
> (although what you said there is true). However, Artemis isn't simply for
> legacy HornetQ users. Numerous modifications and updates have been made to
> Artemis to make migration for ActiveMQ 5.x users smoother (although much
> work is still to be done).
>
> My point was that just because Artemis 1.0 was released in June you
> shouldn't necessarily consider it a risk to adopt since it is largely based
> on code that's baked in a (non-Apache) community for the better part of 6
> years now.
>
> As far as integration goes, both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis are
> multi-protocol brokers so depending on what protocol you want to use will
> determine, in large part, how you integrate. Artemis supports JMS 1.0, 1.1,
> & 2.0 and well as STOMP 1.0 & 1.1, AMQP 1.0, and has initial support for
> OpenWire (the ActiveMQ 5.x protocol).
>
> You asked about Fuse, but Fuse isn't an Apache project so I think you'd be
> better off asking those guys on their own lists.
>
>
> Justin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BN" <bnallappa@gmail.com>
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:35:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
>
> Thanks Gents for the posts.
> From what I gather are two points
> 1. If an organization is risk averse then they should stick to ActiveMQ
> 2. Artemis code base comes from HornetQ and so Artemis would be a natural
> transition for  people who are comfortable or have previous experience
> working with HornetQ.
>
> I have one last question and that is the role of FUSE.
>
> 1. What are the standard techniques of integrating your Java code with
> ActiveMQ?
> 2. I know Fuse is part of JBoss EAP 7.x and with introduction of Fuse will
> the access to ActiveMQ be changed?
>
> Thanks once again for all the support.
>
> Regards
> BN
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-ActiveMQ-vs-Apache-ActiveMQ-Artemis-tp4703828p4703916.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

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