(was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
Thanks Lionel - I agree.
The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
community.
On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
the community.
It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
sub-project with its own name.
Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
Rob
Lionel Cons <mailto:lionel.c...@cern.ch>
25 March 2015 06:58
(for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves
more
than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started
in 2010
as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that
time,
the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo
developments
(like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to
ActiveMQ. The
ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
"ActiveMQ's
next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we
should get
a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor
versions later
(who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve
there
and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
project
should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
Cheers,
Lionel Cons
