I thought that was the initial proposal thread where I didn't see anyone saying even "wait a minute…" So I don't buy that this was forced down anyones throat. And if it was totally clear to me, who just barely manages to follow the lists occasionally, that the proposal was to use the hornetq broker with all the non-broker activemq goodies I really don't see how anyone more involved could have thought differently.
I'm repeating myself from another message, but what I'm getting from Hadrian and Art is "innovation not welcome here". I'm sure that's not what they intend so I hope they can rephrase what they are saying so it's clearer at least to me. thanks david jencks On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Tracy Snell <tsn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:42 PM, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID> >> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > Yes, the HornetQ committers are working hard to make HornetQ the next > ActiveMQ, the AMQ committers aren't doing the same (yet). You’re right, if > everyone just followed the demands that they go down the path chosen by only > one side then it would be one community. Again, that’s not how you build > community. Propose a path with solid justification and sell that in the > community. Forcing a path only fragments the community as we’re seeing now. > That’s why you don’t see the AMQ side working twice as hard as the HornetQ > side. I fully understand that part.
