Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and
building the community in the incubator does not prevent anything you
mentioned from happing, right?
Apollo did it right actually. Some folks said that they had a better
idea, called the project Apollo, not activemq-6 (although there were the
same references to plans for apollo to become the core of the next
generation of activemq). And the Apollo community went on to prove its
viability. The fact that it didn't happen has many reasons, most of them
not technical.
As an ASF member I am interested in the viability and maturity of a
project community. HornetQ is not yet there. And the fact fact that it's
called activemq-6 effectively prevents the current mature activemq
project to have a version 6 in any shape that is not HornetQ.
I was kinda neutral initially and did not get involved in this thread
initially. But the passion to keep the activemq6 name for hornetq, makes
me very suspicious (coupled with past experiences) that I am getting
very strongly in favour of hornetq being re-hosted in the incubator
where there are many very experienced ASFer that could mentor and assist
(more than in the ActiveMQ community). If HornetQ will not happen, the
same way Apollo didn't, this will prove to be another distraction. Some
are excited about the future, others are frustrated about the present.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/25/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
generation of ActiveMQ.
Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
etc) which is something HornetQ does.
I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly, it
would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
the community join together to support one broker going forward would
produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
causing it to die out.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
