Hi John,
It wasn't so clear to me, I probably missed this part.
Regards
JB
On 03/26/2015 08:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
On Thu, 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.
I think it's important to read Clebert's initial email on the subject of
donation:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
To me, this reads exactly to what occurred here - a new broker.
John
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-next-generation-
tp4693781p4693856.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
