This is not a view shared by everybody.
The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
in the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
solution. If hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from
the activemq community will jump boat. Who knows.
But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
the solution you mention in the incubator right?
After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
for the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction.
They can choose to be as close or distant they want from the current
activemq features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards
what activemq6 should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision
the hornetq community has for their project.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Sorry, can't stop typing.
My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking a
messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not
going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty explicitly. Did I
misunderstand?
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that
direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
having this discussion.
The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it mean
that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
So, let's put this back into perspective.
We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the ActiveMQ
community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that
Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of
technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
merits described.
I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693805.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
