That's fine. My concerns, again, have nothing to do with the technical
merits. So again, how about changing the name to something more
appropriate (at least imho) and help the guys grow a community?
This would actually give the activemq project the option to upgrade to a
major version, if anybody wishes that. Hornet as a subproject could make
the case that it's the better alternative, at least for some class of
problems. Everything would be simple and clear and time will tell.
How does that sound?
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 04:16 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I was just speaking to the WHY such a drastic change is needed. Not
the, 'will it succeed' :)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
activemq6 and the future of activemq.
Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract a
community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking at
all about technical merits. Apollo has its brilliant lines of code and so
does HornetQ, I am sure.
After all that's been said, my opinion and advice would be for you the
HornetQ crowd to ask the pmc for a rename. My understanding is that the
intent is not to morph the two projects, but keep HornetQ as a better
alternative/replacement for ActiveMQ in the future. If that is true, staying
honest and not blurring the branding lines, shows your pride with the better
project and you'd have to work hard to convince users that you have
something better to offer and grow a community.
Keep in mind that the ActiveMQ PMC is just the sponsoring entity, that is
responsible to guide hornetq through the process of incubation.
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 03:27 PM, Andy Taylor wrote:
+1 and we have already started mining some of the amq5 code and this
will continue. Whats great about HornetQ is its engine, its threading
model, io and journal. take this core and take the functionality that
amq5 has and I think you will end up with a great project and also allow
a path for future development for the ActiveMQ community and so the name
should reflect that in one way or another. I dont see this as any
different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve.
On 24/03/15 18:53, David Jencks wrote:
I think that a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration that
activemq has no long term future. My understanding of the situation is
quite limited, but since there's already been one attempt to replace the
broker (apollo) and no attempt to modernize the existing broker, I'd guess
that it is not feasible. After apollo, I haven't seen the existing amq
community start a new broker project inside activemq, it's been maybe a
couple years, so I expect it won't happen. so, sure hornetQ could be a
different project, mine some external code from amq, and wait for amq to
die. As I tried to indicate before, the only real way forward I see is for
the existing amq community to get behind making the former hornetQ codebase
a real amq 5 replacement. What if you put the same amount of energy into
adapting some amq code to hornetQ as you do objecting to it's presence? I
don't understand why everyone isn't saying, "wow, someone just gave us a
many-dev-years of code advanced broker, lo
o
k
at all the work I don't have to do!!, what can I do to help take
advantage of it?"
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:36 PM, artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6? That question keeps
coming to mind.
At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical
perspective. But considering the community and Apache involvement, the
answer to that question becomes more complex.
Naming releases of HornetQ at activemq-6.0.0-M1 presumes that HornetQ
will
succeed to replace ActiveMQ, and acts as a warning to all activemq users
that the change is coming. But what if it does not succeed? Either on
technical merits or on building community?
The right path from the beginning has always been the incubator path.
Let
HornetQ prove itself as an Apache project and viable alternative to
ActiveMQ
without any attempt at using the ActiveMQ brand.
Since HornetQ has been donated into ActiveMQ, we could certainly look to
take some of the code from HornetQ and merge it into the existing
ActiveMQ
code base.
No matter how we move forward, the issue of building community and
HornetQ
proving itself is the same. So, the question then becomes - what
benefit is
there to ActiveMQ and the ActiveMQ community? If we cannot enumerate a
valid benefit for the community, then it does not belong there.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693742.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
