When I get more time to look at 6.0.0 I’ll write up a post from an ActiveMQ perspective about what’s missing. What I’m worried about is that ActiveMQ has a LOT of features (advisories for example) that would need some sort of support in 6.0.0 to make a migration from 5.0 to 6.0 possible.
The reason we selected AMQ 5.x was because of these features and that they are *required* for our product to even work. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Petter Nordlander < [email protected]> 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> > > -- 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>
