Art, you will have to do your own investigation to be sure but I would encourage you to investigate specjms. Granted it is one benchmark, but it is well thought out and independent, also the hardware is the uniform across results. It demonstrates the known shortcomings of the 5.x architecture. 5.x simply won't scale across cores. 5.x is many things to many folk and will have a long future but there are some metrics it simply cannot match. To answer "what problem are we solving" in 6, in a nutshell - scalability.
On 25 March 2015 at 16:05, 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.
