+1 for a separate repository.
On 10/10/2014 10:16 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
Do we want a separate repository (my preference) or a branch in the
current one?
For the former case, I think infra@ needs to create the repo, then we
could import it.
Can we reach a lazy consensus, do we need/want a formal vote on this?
Hadrian
On 10/10/2014 10:04 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
How to bootstrap this.. who will make the initial import?
From my understanding we need the repository created before we can have
access for it.
We are moving our attention towards the new repository gradually.
Having it
created will help us speed up the process.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[email protected]>
wrote:
+1 for activemq6 as well.
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected]
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Clebert Suconic
<[email protected]
wrote:
+1
I like the activemq6 idea better too
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
wrote:
activemq-6 sounds good. It's also consistent with other things that
happened the past (like the transition from smx 3 to 4).
I am not sure if a branch is better or a separate repo. Since we're
already on git, my preference would be the latter.
Hadrian
On 10/07/2014 04:59 AM, Richard Kettelerij wrote:
Or morph HornetQ (and parts of Apollo) into a new branch and call it
ActiveMQ 6 right away. Just my 0.02ct
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Hiram Chirino
<[email protected]
wrote:
Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira. What should we call
it? Keep
it hornetq? Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code
name
(apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be
hard
to
differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo"
does it
refer
to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that
apollo is
no
longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for
hornet's
adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using
the
apollo codename.
Just my $0.02,
Hadrian
On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Yeah that will work. Perhaps it would be easiest to import the
code
into a branch in the apollo git branch. That way we can continue
to
use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
<[email protected]> wrote:
Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever
dependencies
we
have
before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making
the
integration?
Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We
can
just
clean up anything we have there that already have apache
equivalents.
(e.g.
the jms API and other things like that).
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully
<[email protected]>
wrote:
the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
clearance
work.
The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant
are
the
HQ
guys
maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
knowledgeable
help with the cleanup.
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
[email protected]%3E
On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
[email protected]>
wrote:
+1
I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be
part
of
the
work after acceptance and before releasing.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
<[email protected]>
wrote:
That sounds good to me.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <
[email protected]>
wrote:
I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial
committers
and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before
completing
the
'Verify distribution rights' section.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I see #1 and #2 are complete.
on #3
- there are a bunch of examples and documentation that
do not
have
the
apache license header, but this is covered in the code
grant. We
can
add licenses as appropriate before a release.
-- otherwise we are in the clear.
on #4
- There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb
etc)
from
jboss
under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the
geronimo
counterparts
- The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of
jboss
extension points from ironjacamar-core-api,
jboss-jca-api and
jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
-- We will need to make a functional version without
those
extension
points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside
apache.
- there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
-- This will require some major surgery to extract the
logging
into
a
plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most
every
file.
- there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we
can
drop
if
necessary.
In summary, before any of the contributed code is
released we
will
need to address these dependencies but they need not
hinder a
grant
acceptance.
Gary.
[1]
https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/
distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino
<[email protected]
wrote:
Hi Clebert ,
This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP
clearance
form:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/
content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
currently
exists on github master (commit
90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
Things we still need to do:
1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they
have
CLAs
filed.
3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have
the
right
to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
project
is
covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help
check
and
double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
[email protected]> wrote:
I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
[email protected]
wrote:
Hi Clebert,
the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so
from my
perspective
we would love to have the code base.
We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative
strengths
of
Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look
at
doing
an
import.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <
[email protected]
wrote:
Hi Clebert,
That sounds very interesting! Bringing the HornetQ
community
into
ActiveMQ would be exciting for me. We could collaborate and
bring
together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
create
an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
developer
community at the same time. Lots of folks have been asking me
when
will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ
has
JMS
2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next
generation
messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's
mostly
implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
and
that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
projects
is more about community than code. I have been pondering
porting
Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java
based
but
and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
Apollo,
perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
:)
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead
for the
HornetQ
JMS broker
(http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently
in
the
planning
phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
thinking
about
whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more
closely
with the
ActiveMQ community.
There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of
the two
brokers
today and
it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both
communities
for
us to join
forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
our
time
duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
community of
developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
consolidate
our work
there.
My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project
aimed to
provide
a
basis for
the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the
current
limitations.
Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some
good
performance
and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
already
supports
STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
straight-forward and
would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially,
the
goal could
be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
performance of
HornetQ.
Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm
really
just
interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel
about
a
donation of
the HornetQ codebase.
Thanks and best regards,
Clebert.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected]
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected]
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected]
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
[email protected] | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
