I don't think AMQ 5.x is dead, plenty of people maintaining it :) Cheers, Jamie
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Kevin Burton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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>
