At some point, it could well make sense to call the HornetQ release ActiveMQ 6 - but not yet. This has caused a lot of confusion- it should be called something else ??
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 19:40, Kevin Burton <bur...@spinn3r.com> wrote: > > 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 it’s 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 <a...@artnaseef.com> 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-tp4693434p4693463.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 > … or check out my Google+ profile > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> > <http://spinn3r.com>
