Why call it ActiveMQ 6.0 and not HornetMQ (or another name)? Is hornetq a fork of ActiveMQ ?
We’re still having issues with ActiveMQ and the idea of migrating to another projects sounds like a nightmare for us. There are people using the current code base of ActiveMQ and this means that 5.x is dead. Unless I’m missing something. Which I hope I am :) I’ll try to do a lot more reading on the subject and ActiveMQ 6.0.. maybe it will solve all my problems :) On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > as we said on the vote thread, activemq6 is This is a first release of > the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP, STOMP, CORE and > OPENWIRE. > > It's a new dev effort and it's from a different repo: > https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/ > > So I don't think the issue you mentioned would affect the new repo / > codebase. > > We are being quite active on moving forward with this codebase and we > are striving and working hard here. So any issues please let us know. > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Burton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes. Sort of. There was a regression for persistent=false which breaks > it > > for advisories. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665 > > > > I was *hoping* it fixed the issue. > > > > If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find > where > > it broke. > > > > One other problem I ran into: > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq > > > > Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.) > > > > master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches.. > > > > The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed. So I was > > trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been > > renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P > > > > We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install. Right now > > it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages. 5.10.x has had a > number > > of issues for us. I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged > for > > 6.0.0. The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have > > been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty > > major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues. > > > > I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire queue > > serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very > > large with nothing being served. I was going to try to get on 5.11 or > > 6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories. > > > > I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw. But I need to > figure > > out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into > > purgatory. Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to > avoid > > having my work left behind. > > > > Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help? > > > > Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no, > we’re > > not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation! > :) > > > > If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the graveyard > > and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull > > request for that as well. > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target > >> compilation still java 1.7 > >> > >> We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped > >> back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but > >> since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending > >> java8. > >> > >> > >> The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up > >> till recently. > >> > >> > >> I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to > >> use java7 on the binaries at this point. > >> > >> > >> Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it... > >> we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps! > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > Just curious. We’re still on Java 1.7. I assume Java 8 features are > >> > actually used. Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a > >> > reasonable requirement at this point. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com > >> > Location: *San Francisco, CA* > >> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com > >> > … or check out my Google+ profile > >> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> > >> > <http://spinn3r.com> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Clebert Suconic > >> http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] > >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com > > Location: *San Francisco, CA* > > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com > > … or check out my Google+ profile > > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> > > <http://spinn3r.com> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com > -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com … or check out my Google+ profile <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> <http://spinn3r.com>
