My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's
I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are
presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular
vendor and lack of diversity. Until very recently, there were only 2 pmc
votes coming from outside a particular vendor. That was a concern for
many on this thread.
HornetQ is considered a replacement of ActiveMQ code base, that it clear
from this thread. My concerns are the following:
1. a future activemq 6 for the current code base becomes impossible;
2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future of
activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they wait? )
3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I
understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good
friends)
4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no
diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where
there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it.
This is, btw, my biggest issue.
Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these
reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am
making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It
is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach
consensus.
Best,
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 05:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Still even more baffled. I haven't seen anything on this list that indicates
any of the new activemq committters working on activemq6 think that hornetQ is
a thing separate from activemq so how it could be important or not is beyond my
comprehension. You must have some reason to think this based on other
evidence, what is it?
I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6. AFAICT it
hasn't happened in 5 years, what's different now? Who's going to do the work?
It seems to me that some new people showed up enthusiastic to develop new
features and brought some code with them that no one here has written in the
last 5 years, I just don't understand why you aren't welcoming the initiative
and I don't understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover. Is
someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
I completely agree with Dan.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the
evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to happen
there. I could also argue that cxf should have been an axis2 subproject called
axis3.
I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same thing
(actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny thing is that
nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very important for hornetq and,
as it seems, perceived by its proponents as a key ingredient to its success.
And nobody in the activemq community was desperately shopping for a new broker
6 mo ago out of fear that activemq will die. For that reason I consider the
activemq eulogies as disingenuous.
If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a "new" broker. There
were questions about the future of the v5 broker though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary)
saying something like "expect that to get very stable". There are some features
requested, yes, contributions are also welcome.
So why is this all happening? Again?
I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new board will
take a look at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I don't think I
have much to add.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can
very well happen in the incubator.
Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s
response.
In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to
weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not.
Doing it here means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also
have (hopefully) the expertise to make sure those issues are addressed. To me,
that’s the best way to make sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better
ActiveMQ.
I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep doing M#
versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable
drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If
the community decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start
doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the “6.0.0” final release is
done, we have a lot of flexibility and control.
From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to
spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new
and enhanced architecture and such? No. It hasn’t happened in the last 4
years, I’m not sure why it would happen now. Except for Art, all of the most
“active contributors” have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from
the grant is the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if
they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from
those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either. So I DO
have a concern about that.
Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”: what are
your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward? Are
you guys going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code: are
you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff
and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
Dan
The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
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.
