+1 Hadrian "Reports of ActiveMQ's death have been grossly exaggerated." (borrowing from Mark Twain)
There is definitely a sense that many of the members of this PMC are tired of maintaining the existing code base. That's understandable - they've been the key folks for a long time, and I for one appreciate their effort. Thank you. With that said, I would love to see a fresh wave of innovation and influx of talent to ActiveMQ. Itself. Gary - remember the idea of "feedback flow control"? I still think that is a better approach to PFC in spite of being told that ActiveMQ doesn't want large changes of that nature. And how about approaches to solving temporary destination race conditions across a network of brokers? I know it can be solved and am working now toward that end. I know very well that over many years, almost no new committers were added to ActiveMQ. Certainly, we need to do better. Gary - I ask for information showing what problem needs to be solved and you reply, "you can look around yourself," and give a reference to one benchmark that appears to cost $1800. That's not a helpful, nor a convincing, argument. I am getting a strong vibe from you, and I truly hope you find a next step that satisfies you. By the way, if we're talking benchmarks, here's a benchmark that shows ActiveMQ outperforming HornetQ: http://blog.x-aeon.com/2013/04/10/a-quick-message-queue-benchmark-activemq-rabbitmq-hornetq-qpid-apollo/ (note the graphs show time, so lower is better). There is no convincing argument at hand that ActiveMQ is anything other than a widely-used, popular and successful solution, and I for one will continue to put in the effort I can to continue it forward. I wish I were paid to work on it, but my effort is actually 100% volunteer, making it harder to put in the time. But I will find time and I hope others will join me. Honestly, if we look at the arguments for bringing HornetQ in as ActiveMQ6, they all involve attacking ActiveMQ and hype around the strength of HornetQ's technology. So, then, why does HornetQ need the ActiveMQ name? HornetQ folks - you are welcome to woo any and all ActiveMQ community members. Coming in and saying, "we need a presumption of taking the activemq-6 mantle so we can tap into the ActiveMQ resources" is not convincing. Nor is the, "hey, come on guys - let's work together" argument. In fact, why do you need the activemq6 name at all? The more I don't hear, "yeah, we could go out on our own, but really thought this move was the best because ...," the less I believe the hype. Also under the "joining forces argument" -- should Microsoft Windows and Mac OSX merge and join forces? I'm sure there would be benefits. But, perhaps the entire industry is better because they do *not* join forces. Sometimes innovation comes best when two solutions are built separately toward the same end. There are entire markets based on that model. HornetQ folks - your solution has some strong merits based on my brief research, and I anticipate great things. For example, the separation of the core messaging primitives from JMS sounds promising, as does the statement that the engine uses entirely non-blocking operations. Keep up the good work - everyone. Vigorous discussion is an important part of open source. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693825.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
