Sure absolutely.
I changed my mind a few times during this thread. The rationale for my
revised recommendation is:
1. Many in the activemq community accept the notion that hornetq has
technical merits, yet very few actually looked at the code. We are
nothing more than a peanut gallery for the hornetq guys.
2. If I were one of the active committers in hornetq, I would jump at
the opportunity to build the project and community without the activemq
baggage. Independently (in the incubator) the project has the freedom to
go whatever path they choose.
3. In the incubator they would benefit from far better mentoring than
what they get in the ActiveMQ pmc.
Yes, the hornetq commmitters did a lot of work (didn't get much help
also). It would be frustrating and a bit unfair to them. Yes, their
opinion does count.
Renaming the subproject to something else than activemq6 was not
accepted. This would have been imho a very simple solution until such
time that a strong community exists. By that time, it might be activemq
7 or 8, who knows. The strong push from one side of the fence to keep it
as activemq6, concerns me. It sounds like the hornetq proponents feel
that the only way to be successful is to (what is perceived as) hijack
of the activemq brand and future of the project. And the idea that the
activemq project will die without the infusion of hornetq is, well,
insulting. What facts support that statement? I, personally, react very
strongly to such manipulative comments.
Now that Chris is aware of this threads, I think enough points of view
were expressed and I hope we'll soon hear a more authoritative opinion.
Best,
Hadrian
On 03/25/2015 06:52 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
Hadrian - so the original vote was to accept the code into ActiveMQ
specifically. We would have to check with the HornetQ developers to see if now
going to incubator instead was acceptable to them - but it does seem to me that
their desire to join ActiveMQ was borne out of consolidation of the code bases
- and it does appear it was accepted in that vein. The HornetQ code base has
been worked on to be ready to pass ASF release guidelines - but actually trying
to release it had caused a lot of concern within the community, which is
understandable.
So instead of passing HornetQ to the incubator - wouldn't it be better to
start a discussion on how some/all/none of it could be incorporated into
ActiveMQ? I'm not sure this had happened yet.
Rob
On 25 Mar 2015, at 20:53, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
