Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75A73180E6 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:48:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 93038 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2015 20:48:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 93007 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2015 20:48:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 92992 invoked by uid 99); 12 Nov 2015 20:48:50 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:48:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2EF50C52CE for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:48:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.565 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.565 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SNybv9DuVkNP for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 0C97720F43 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioir85 with SMTP id r85so37014194ioi.1 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:48:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=fJ1qv8jhTlmEKqWMR23yp1JA2L1jNi8mt7YHXZkHexQ=; b=DqUMx6X2FPE6wUophyo6r2tg0FZo0WVBnCxHn3RFAI5F2wUMdiw4V+hQ+NJXIafd1u I60guRqxUZzaHM9zzHukU0b/duU6brGJWAopy98LEnf/kylBJ5/P3qBQOF6o4upWSrmm AQ71+glf9gEOHwcHvIQoHnbNPiFWnY2ohfAhoJ5/Iqu7dRQPbIsIdOr015aKHuSrurnq 4jG5k3bFDCfeQVyuFgfFWjJ/z6aq4mtO2KxiMm/ofJ8JIyEn4Ey+qqhjm0d8CWNnvfCA NCcWYrWapJFVjqOtYaBwDL5PFcY0DR3u8RxjNU4ReuyE88w3JaeRf1PmvLiFrwHxsLmF YIow== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.135.65 with SMTP id j62mr18578253iod.47.1447361320348; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:48:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: tbain98@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.220.195 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.220.195 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:48:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <683805430.6919261.1447357517034.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <1447194417880-4703828.post@n4.nabble.com> <1447353343526-4703916.post@n4.nabble.com> <683805430.6919261.1447357517034.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:48:40 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: OyfQSbDyfXEkWhaOyd0Gtyp3T10 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis From: Tim Bain To: ActiveMQ Users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ecbf25c74c705245e1141 --001a113ecbf25c74c705245e1141 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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" 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" > 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. > --001a113ecbf25c74c705245e1141--