It’s possible for there to be 20+ Apache brokers.
Apache doesn’t pick winners - we are here to support all various communities. What’s becoming increasingly clear to me is that this is not a single community - there seem to be several factions within it - which is largely indicative of an umbrella project and those don’t lead to a good path at the ASF - and the board has in the past stepped in in these situations. I am thinking there is a need to do so here based on my reading and the situations. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: dlalaina <dlala...@gmail.com> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:22 AM To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >Hello guys, I totally agree with last 2 David posts. > >I'm responsible for the messaging and transactions platform/infrastructure >in Movile.com. > >For the last 9 years we tried almost all brokers possibilities, ibm, >hornetq, amq, openmq, rabbitmq, sqs, etc, etc. And all kind of >integrations/structures/languages/protocols/etc. > >We are running about 150 billion msgs/year, almost 100% in hornetq(70%) >and >websphere mq(25%). And these middlewares were chosen for really good >technical reasons. > >My opinion: > >hornetq core + improvements(already done in this "amq rc") + compatibility >with amq5. >It's awesome, can't be better. What doubts do you still have about this? I >agree that Amq5 and its community have merits, but it needs a new core, >and >I can't see better opportunity. > >Is it reasonable to have 2 apache brokers? > >Performance/Integrity/Stability/Compatibility > >Regards, >Daniel La Laina >sent from s4 > > > >-- >View this message in context: >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-gene >ration-tp4693781p4693862.html >Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
