There's a difference between should and can. Is this a short term support via deprecated and planned obsolescence, or is it long term first class support? I don't really know much about what the HornetQ support entails.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 9:18 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it doesn't hurt to do it. it's only beneficial. > > > The concern probably started from this Pull Request: > https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/205 > > Which we will merge it.. I will just extend the change to coupe with > old clients. > > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> > wrote: > > Yep. I think supporting old HornetQ clients should be a goal too. If > > it's not too much effort will open our projects to more users which I > > think is a good thing. > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM, James Carman > > <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >> It has come to light that some folks feel that ActiveMQ {CodeName} > >> should support backward compatibility with HornetQ. I don't think > >> this has been discussed specifically within the community yet, so I > >> thought I'd bring it up. > >> > >> James > > > > > > > > -- > > Hiram Chirino > > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > > hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com >
