> On Mar 26, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote: > 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?
No. I speak for myself, but based on what I SEE in the community. For the last several years, there have not been any real “plans” about future direction of the main codebase. There was the Apollo project for a while and now the code grant, but nothing “major” around the main code base. There have been some new features and enhancements, but they mostly fell into two categories: 1) Stuff pulled back from Apollo if it made sense to do so and could be done easily enough. 2) A couple of “new features” developed by various community members in a “scratch their own itch” type of thing. Definitely nothing wrong with this, that’s great. But from an OUTSIDE perspective, if you look at the ActiveMQ community, there doesn’t seem to be any concrete direction or plans. Look at the website, read the mailing lists, etc… Nothing. Occasionally a new feature or idea will pop up and once in a while there is a “hey, we did a few cool things, lets build a release”. Hadrian’s bullet bellow is about users and what they see by observing, not the Apache developers/committers in the community. Basically, my point was that I thought his “point 2” about "confusion in the users community about the future” (he specifically says user community) is almost pointless when it comes to the whole ActiveMQ 6 discussion. Even without the ActiveMQ 6 discussion there is significant confusion. Dan > > 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 >> > > -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
