I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
thanks david jencks On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote: >> 5.x needs a new core. > > I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here. > > The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as > a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have > mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made > available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base. > > If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to > replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been > very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this > same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there > would be no reason to discuss it now. > > Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into > the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I > have it wrong). > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
