On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Burton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/docs/6.0.0/management.html#management-notifications > > 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> -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
