All,
I agree that at some point (probably before the official ActiveMQ 6.0.0
release) the fact that ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is the successor of HornetQ
2.4.5.Final, not ActiveMQ 5.x needs to be publicized.
I'm a HornetQ (via JBoss/WildFly) user, and I only found this out
through twitter because I follow Clebert already.
There are probably users of HornetQ 2.4.x who are not aware of the
Apache donation and are wondering why the development activity on the
HornetQ GitHub repo has slowed down.
--
Weiqi Gao
[email protected]
http://weiqigao.blogspot.com
On 3/19/2015 3:15 PM, Petter Nordlander wrote:
I can only agree.
ActiveMQ 6.0.0, by the name, suggests that it¹s a successor to ActiveMQ,
which it¹s not as it¹s a successor to HornetQ with some elements from
ActiveMQ. Great work though, I like the initiative as such.
As long as there is no upgrade path, the name will confuse users. A lot of
people will try it out just to find that half of the features they were
used to are gone. I guess a good start would be to clarify things on the
ActiveMQ homepage.
BR Petter
Den 2015-03-19 20:40 skrev Kevin Burton <[email protected]>:
Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it. Maybe just on the
HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
I think it¹s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different
things.
Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ? if so
perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote:
ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
5.x.
The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for
HornetQ.
Yes, it's confusing.
Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
(https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
ActiveMQ -
until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other. If you catch
me
using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack
me
in the back of the head ;-).
I'm sorry for your confusion. It is a major concern that you were
confused
and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
upgrading ActiveMQ.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp46
93434p4693463.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
Š or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
