Art, I don't think anyone is planning to deprecate 5.x support right now. I think it will stick around for some time and it's fine to have both versions supported.
Also, the JBoss name is not an Apache name, it is a RH product. It should have no effect on what the community here decides to use for version numbers. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. > > From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not > necessarily the details of how we get there. I agree there are some > discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what > needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base. But I > think we need a clear vision before we can set out a road map of how to get > there. > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Michael André Pearce < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making > the > > direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight > 5.x, > > but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be. > > > > > > On your commends about JBoss. > > > > I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and > its > > versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors > > re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache > > Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project. > > > > Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own > > versions, such as: > > > > Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR > > Apache Kafka with Confluent > > Apache Ignite with GridGain > > > > They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the > > upstream Apache projects. > > > > On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a > > RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a > > company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from > > their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is > based > > on ActiveMQ 5.X. > > > > Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning > should > > be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this > > discussion IMO. > > > > On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your > > question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it > > switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions > of > > Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others > > transitioning from their previous version. > > > > Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that: > > > > * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of > > the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ > 5.X ( > > https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/ > > reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html) > > * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/ > > author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration) > > * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it: > > * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE > > * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io > > > > Cheers > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > -1 I think we need to slow down. > > > > > > While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a > > > single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is > > made. > > > Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are > > > deprecating AMQ 5 now. > > > > > > For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered > at > > > this point" shows a lack of clarity itself. If we were truly > methodical, > > > then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the > name > > > ActiveMQ 6. > > > > > > ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it > > deserves > > > the greatest of attention and care. > > > > > > Questions coming to mind for making this decision: > > > * What is the full list of features needed? > > > * How much adoption does Artemis have? > > > * How stable is Artemis? > > > * What features will be dropped? Scheduler? HTTP endpoints? ... > > > > > > Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022. > > > > > > Notice it's still open after more than 8 months. It impacts OpenWire > > > support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward > > > transition for customers as possible. > > > > > > Please start to enumerate these points. > > > > > > BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss > > AMQ 7" > > > is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even > more > > > confusion. > > > > > > ALSO - one big point. This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to > the > > > vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree > > with > > > having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware > of > > > these discussions and votes on the PMC list. > > > > > > I'll post the link there now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev- > > f2368404.html > > > > >
