+1. I was definitely recommending this.
-----Original Message----- From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:26 AM To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >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-ge >>>neration-tp4693781p4693805.html >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>
