What do you mean the ActiveMQ has zero plans?
Do you mean Apache ActiveMQ has zero plans? Seriously Dan? Do you speak for the PMC? Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:36 PM To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > >> On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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; > >Well, an activemq6 based on the current code base is something I’d >consider highly improbable so I wouldn’t consider it a huge issue. In >any case, it would only become “impossible” once the 6.0.0 final release >is done which COULD be a long ways off. > >> 2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future >>of activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they >>wait? ) > >Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or >jump to a competitor? What’s your point? > >> 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. > >And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this >addressed. I, for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the >RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF. We could possibly get the TomEE and/or >Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related. Any of us could look >at some of the other missing features and start working on it. That >said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get >help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members. >But again, plenty of time and getting an “M1” out would certainly help. > >Dan > > >> 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-ne >>>>>>>>xt-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html >>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >-- >Daniel Kulp >dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog >Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >
