I think I'm the only one saying what you characterize as insults, and I don't think you got my point, which I still stand behind.
I don't think activemq has a long term future without a scalable broker. it's a bit different, but would tomcat have a long term future if they only supported servlet 2.3? I think this is completely obvious. The time scale might be 5 or 10 years, but at some point without scalability no one will be interested. I expect that in a couple of years if you want to run activemq on your phone, scalability will be important. That's the technical merit I'm talking about. I don't think Hiram would have started Apollo if it were technically feasible to make the current broker scalable. I don't see anyone else in the existing community making any effort to write a new broker after Apollo. With some recent comments this might be changing. Good. I therefore see the opportunity to integrate the hornetQ broker as an incredible opportunity for the activemq community and totally don't understand why all the pre-existing committers aren't contributing twice as much as the new ones to the integration. (unfortunately I don't have time or I would be working on jca integration and osgi-ification) If they were, I think everyone would think there was one community, not two. I'm starting to think that there were pre-existing problems in the community that this integration effort has brought more into focus for some. I don't think making hornetq go away will do anything to fix these problems, although it might hide them for a while longer. I continue to think the best outcome for activemq would be to continue the integration work inside activemq under some innocuous name and work on improving how the community works. thanks david jencks On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Tracy Snell <tsn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stats for the last 12 months (jan - jan) show both projects about equal. > Hornetq has an edge on number of committers but not a big one. > > https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq <https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq> > https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq <https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq> > > I have read the history and I still don’t think things have been presented as > clearly and openly as you think. Plus all the unnecessary insults (ActiveMQ > will die without HornetQ, No one will choose ActiveMQ based on technical > merit, etc) from various folks have done nothing but foster division not > community. > > >> On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate >> communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community ( >> in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I >> don't understand is that you actually agreed to this - and backed a proposal >> made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and >> now you start calling foul? go back and read the history. >
