I am 100% behind the idea of building activemq 6 around the hornetq donation. There is no other viable option.
If we start another sub project there will still be confusion about the future. It is time to make a decision about direction and rally around it. Is anyone else in the community working on activemq 6? On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > (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 <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 > >
