I for one do not agree with this direction the project is taking. What are the benefits to AMQ as a project? I have heard some talk of a "cleaner codebase" or whatever, but that sounds very subjective. How does switching to HornetQ benefit the users of AMQ? Will their migration be a pain? Is the AMQ codebase that far gone, with nothing left but to abandon ship and take everything of value over to HornetQ?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for leaner, cleaner, more maintainable code. Honestly, I haven't had time to take a look at what's there for "AMQ6" yet. It may be the cat's pajamas for all I know. From the original [VOTE], it wasn't obvious (at least not to me) that the direction would be to completely abandon the current AMQ code. It would have seemed like we would adapt code from HornetQ (is that last Q supposed to be capitalized?) into AMQ, not the other way around. This seems like a classic "bait-and-switch", honestly. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's my point :). How do you define general consensus? > > This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much looks > to me like two different groups doing their own thing independently on the > same mailing list. > > More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have expected > to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for instance. I don't > see any efforts to build a community besides this 'evolution' from > activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the redhat summit? How is > the community going to grow? > > I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a new RC > based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what? > > Cheers, > Hadrian > > > > > On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: >> >> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems >> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue >> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code >> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a >> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning. >> >> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I >>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we >>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking >>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that >>> I am quite skeptical of. >>> >>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product, >>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the >>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the >>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next >>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread. >>> >>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the >>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a >>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its >>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead >>> end". >>> >>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know >>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to >>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best. >>> >>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it >>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the >>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of >>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel >>> moving to felix and then going tlp). >>> >>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed. >>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the >>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop >>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well >>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it >>> doesn't work so well. >>> >>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name >>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's >>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address >>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in >>> replacement. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Hadrian >>> >>> >>> >>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>> >>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project. >>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a >>>> bit odd to me. >>>> >>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age >>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from >>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited >>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and >>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo >>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now >>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is >>>> to help the new ones learn about apache. What better way than by >>>> pitching in and working on the code together? >>>> >>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue…. >>>> david jencks >>>> >>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now here lies the problem. >>>>> >>>>> I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates an >>>>> expectation from the users and sort of a promise from the activemq >>>>> pmc, amplified by the vendors' marketing (well, exactly one in this >>>>> case). The same promise has been made with apollo. >>>>> >>>>> I am less concerned with the rewrite. To me that is not an issue. If >>>>> smaller or larger parts are rewritten but maintain (reasonable) >>>>> feature parity, it is an evolution of the same project. >>>>> >>>>> I am however more concerned with the ability of the activemq6 >>>>> podling/subproject to build a diverse community. So far I don't see >>>>> encouraging signs. My fear is that the result will be alienation of >>>>> the more diverse activemq 5.x community (still less diverse than it >>>>> should be) and turn activemq into a one company show. >>>>> >>>>> So far it looks it looks to me that the perception card was played, >>>>> with the choice of name. It *sounds* like activemq6 the evolution of >>>>> activemq. How will the current pmc ensure that this is really gonna >>>>> be the case? (fwiw, I do get questions about the relationship >>>>> between amq6 and 5 already, and for the life of me I don't know how >>>>> to answer). >>>>> >>>>> Choosing a different name, as I think Rob suggested too, would have >>>>> made this a moot point. >>>>> >>>>> My $0.02, >>>>> Hadrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:07 AM, Gary Tully wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we >>>>>>> will go >>>>>>> ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We will also add some >>>>>>> content the website so users are clear that currently there isn't >>>>>>> feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6. We will then raise >>>>>>> JIRA to map out a migration path post release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please help me to understand how this would go. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when? Until we are >>>>>>>>> ready to >>>>>>>>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first >>>>>>>>> 6.0.0)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >
