David, I strongly encourage you to become the Champion for HornetQ, lead
it through incubation, pull whatever pleases you from ActiveMQ, as
little or as much as you want and prove your point. Forget the
antiquated ActiveMQ.
It pains me that after all this talk you still dodge the community
aspect. As an ASF member I expect much, much more from you.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 02:42 PM, David Jencks wrote:
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.
