I would say it's a short term for older clients being able to connect via deprecated.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jim Gomes <jgo...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
