Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or jump to
a competitor? What’s your point?
Actually, yes, there are organizations that expand their activemq
operations based on the current code base. Not sure about new users. I
heard of users who started to use RabbitMQ.
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.
In theory, maybe. In practice, what I see is that HornetQ is another
thing that will replace the existing code, i.e. *community*. The way I
read it is that the existing community members have to choose between
the hornet "new" way and the highway. Not that there are that many
outside of one big camp.
I suggested a simple name change, giving all the time necessary for the
alignment you mentioned and yes, from my point of view it would have
been ok, it's clear that it's a different thing, but in time, it could
be aligned and we could have made a decision later based on the state of
the code and the state of the community. But no, the answer was: "we
want the name". Which I translated to "we want our project to take over
the activemq community, and maybe we'll make some concessions along the
way". That pushed my buttons.
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.
Well, this hasn't been disputed, so nothing to comment on.
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.
Nor was this.
