Been quiet on this for a long time. I am a contractor, not a committer, nor PMC, I’ve done countless hours of
ActiveMQ classes, training and consulting. davsclaus commented 5 hours ago No description provided. davsclaus commented 5 hours ago There were 2 left over comments about hornetmq in the activemq6 source code. Now a git grep returns empty davsclaus:~/workspace/activemq-6 (polish)/$ git grep -i "hornetmq" HornetQBot commented 5 hours ago Can one of the admins verify this patch by saying "ok to test"? Polish and renamed hornetmq to activemq-6 31cdedc clebertsuconic commented on 31cdedc 5 hours ago Nice catch davsclaus commented on 31cdedc 5 hours ago Oh just spotted that running git grep -i "hornet" Shows some more code that likely could be migrated too. And there is code comments that refer to the old jboss issue tracker. Not sure what the best approach is there. eg such as a comment as // that was happening under https://issues.jboss.org/browse/HORNETQ-988 But there is some more which should be fixed such as docs/quickstart-guide/en/running.md: 11:05:10,848 INFO [org.apache.activemq.core.server] HQ221001: ActiveMQ Server version 2.5.0.SNAPSHOT (Wild Hornet, 125) [e32ae252-52ee-11e4-a716-7785dc3013a3 docs/user-manual/en/management.md: {"timestamp":1422019706,"status":200,"request":{"mbean":"org.apache.activemq:module=Core,type=Server","attribute":"Version","type":"read"},"value":"6.0.0.SNAPSHOT (Activ etc/checkstyle.xml: <!-- developed at https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq-checkstyle-checks --> etc/checkstyle.xml: <module name="org.hornetq.checks.annotation.RequiredAnnotation"> asfbot commented 5 hours ago ActiveMQ6-PR-Build #222 SUCCESS This pull request looks good jbertram commented 5 hours ago The references to "HornetMQ" probably weren't caught earlier because nobody thought to search for "HornetMQ" since the broker's name is "HornetQ" (without the "M"). I think that any JIRA links which reference the HORNETQ project should stay as is so historical information remains in-tact. I also think the references in checkstyle.xml are also legit since they reference code used for checkstyle checks. clebertsuconic commented 4 hours ago I contributed that check style I wrote to check style. They refactored it and I'm waiting to be released on their satellite project before I can remove this and replace it. So as a user of ActiveMQ, I guess I’m left reading this as - we are re-writing the history, names and lira so we can say this is ActiveMQ. Why is the activemq name so important? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.
