Hi Gary, Thanks. I just meant to contact trademarks with respect to branding - the name HornetQ whether removed or not has caused confusion here since it seems to be a pre-existing project. It’s great that the PMC or committers have looked into this and done due diligence but at the end of the day checking with trademarks@ is the right step since that’s what the committee is here for - to vet these things. Again this is a standard step in Incubation that needs to be covered.
Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 4:41 AM To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >Chris, > >From a branding perspective. If you peek at the activemq6 repository >or the release candidates for the first release of the code donation >you will see that there is no reference to HornetQ. There has been >trojan work to remove all such references to negate any trademark >issues. Maybe there is something we are missing? > >On 26 March 2015 at 03:24, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote: >> Thanks Christopher. >> >> Based on my reading below - it’s your take that if >> HornetQ went the Incubation route that the Apache ActiveMQ >> community would “die out”? >> >> Is that a correct reading? Is that the view shared >> by the PMC? >> >> I would expect btw, that the current PMC chair should >> include a report by the community on the goings-on during >> this discussion - as I think it’s quite important. If ActiveMQ >> doesn’t have a community around it and if HornetQ is where >> the community of message brokering tech peeps want to move >> to, the thing is, Apache doesn’t pick winners. There can be >> as many competing technology projects that do the same thing >> (how many web servers? how many implementations of JAX-RS? >> how many parsing technologies? etc etc.) >> >> From a branding and naming perspective though, I don’t think >> the ActiveMQ PMC has done its due diligence with respect to >> this HornetQ contribution. Was trademarks@ consulted related >> to this? >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> ------------------------ >> Chris Mattmann >> chris.mattm...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> >> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> >> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM >> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >> >>>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. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>
