Hi, I understand the point. My main concern was in term of versioning (I don’t want to "block" ActiveMQ to do a 6, 7, 8 or whatever release).
Sorry, but classic is something I don’t fully understand (maybe my French culture ;)). I don’t see what’s "classic" (or maybe in term of "previous" or "older") is. Maybe "vintage" (like classical music compare to house music) ;) ? And, anyway, nobody is using "classic": for the users I know, they use ActiveMQ and Artemis (not ActiveMQ Classic or ActiveMQ Artemis). So, if you agree to have: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> I think it’s even better than introducing a new name, I agree. Then, I’m changing the proposal/question: agree to use activemq and Artemis on website ? Regards JB > Le 19 mars 2021 à 15:48, Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Gary stated this well. I agree completely with all of his sentiments here. > > I don't see the point to introducing yet another name as this will muddy > these waters even further, not clarify them. Artemis was meant to be a code > name until it matched ActiveMQ enough to be a drop-in replacement. I don't > believe that this goal has been achieved yet, has it? Is this still an > active goal? > > Classic is an appropriate and deliberate name that was being discussed as > far back as just prior to the HornetQ donation. If we start officially > referring to it as ActiveMQ Classic, then we need to explain the intent > behind this name via the website. > > Agreed, the Classic stream needs a major version bump before those > incompatible changes are introduced. Do this and move forward with those > incompatible changes. > > Bruce > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:29 AM Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi JB, >> I think "classic" is a good name precisely because of its meaning, it >> reflects its value and is a good way to differentiate on the website. >> >> But I don't think the classic stream should be limited in versioning. >> If for good reason (a new incompatible openwire version/storage >> incompatible change/large config update) it needs a major version >> increment, then go for it. >> >> Artemis was always intended as a code name, a generic title, a >> temporary moniker, till it could take on the activemq mantle, but it >> does not have to be 6, it can be 10 or 20, or it can be ActiveMQ >> Artemis. >> >> I don't see any point in introducing another "brand" name, the >> versioning will be sufficient if we want to consolidate on the >> activemq name in the future, and the Artemis sub brand will be >> sufficient if we don't. >> >> to speak to Lucas, the plan for Artemis is to be be a better ActiveMQ >> >> kind regards, >> gary. >> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 04:49, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Like any Apache (and OpenSource) project, ActiveMQ "umbrella" project is >> living and roadmap evolves. >>> >>> Justin is right with the project history, but I think the initial target >> to "replace" ActiveMQ with Artemis evolves, due to the users. >>> >>> Personally, I’m saying still lot of ActiveMQ users, not planning to >> change to Artemis, and even brand new installation starts with ActiveMQ >> (not Artemis). >>> Furthermore, in term of features, there are some gaps between ActiveMQ >> and Artemis IMHO. >>> >>> I think the mistake was to create a separated repo for Artemis: if >> Artemis was ActiveMQ "master" branch at the time of the donation, then, the >> update would be straight forward. >>> >>> So, clearly, IMHO, we have two completed separated projects between >> ActiveMQ and Artemis, because the communities (both users and contributors) >> are not the same. >>> >>> A possible path to that Artemis become Apache TLP (and so ActiveMQ >> Artemis name), and ActiveMQ "classic" stays what he’s: Apache ActiveMQ. >>> >>> If the PMC don’t want to "move" as a TLP, then we should at least give >> space for the two subprojects in the ActiveMQ umbrella and clearly identify >> who is what. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 05:13, Tetreault, Lucas <[email protected]> >> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Hey Justin, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the additional context. As a newcomer, it seems to me like >> both ActiveMQ "Classic" and Artemis are alive and well. 6 years and 2 major >> versions in to development, is the goal and focus for Artemis still on >> feature parity and becoming ActiveMQ 6? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Lucas >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2021-03-18, 8:38 PM, "Justin Bertram" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and >> know the content is safe. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lucas, >>>> >>>> I'm not sure you've been around the ActiveMQ community for very >> long or >>>> maybe you have been and forgot some of the history. In any case, >> I'll >>>> summarize briefly. >>>> >>>> Over a decade ago Hiram Chirino, one of the original ActiveMQ >> developers >>>> and chair of the ActiveMQ PMC at the time, created a new broker >> under the >>>> ActiveMQ banner named Apollo. It was designed on a non-blocking >>>> architecture for much better performance than the existing ActiveMQ >>>> architecture [1]. After ActiveMQ Apollo 1.0 was released the stated >> goal of >>>> this project was for it to eventually be integrated with the >> mainline >>>> ActiveMQ code-base and serve as its replacement [2]. This fact was >>>> advertised on the ActiveMQ website although there are no longer any >>>> references to that since the website was redesigned & updated a >> year or so >>>> ago. For whatever reason Apollo never acquired the critical mass >> necessary >>>> to replace mainline ActiveMQ. >>>> >>>> Then about 6 years ago the HornetQ code-base was donated to the >> ActiveMQ >>>> community and that donation was accepted with the goal of creating >> the next >>>> generation ActiveMQ broker that would eventually become version 6. >> Since >>>> that time work has steadily progressed on the Artemis code-base to >> bring >>>> sufficient feature parity with mainline ActiveMQ to allow users to >>>> transition. Again, this has been communicated via the website and >> other >>>> support channels for the last several years. >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, I hope that clarifies the current state of >> affairs. >>>> >>>> >>>> Justin >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ >>>> [2] >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/ >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 PM Tetreault, Lucas >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me like the core problem here is that there are two >> distinct >>>>> projects operating under one brand and it creates confusion. I agree >> with >>>>> JB that the "ActiveMQ Classic" and "ActiveMQ 5" branding are not >> ideal. >>>>> However, I think that renaming it to ActiveMQ Leto will further >> dilute the >>>>> ActiveMQ brand and create more confusion for users. Why not just >> "ActiveMQ" >>>>> and "Artemis"? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Lucas >>>>> >>>>> On 2021-03-18, 6:54 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender >> and >>>>> know the content is safe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Justin, >>>>> >>>>> I would rather to ActiveMQ Leto 5.17.0 (and then Leto 6.0 at some >>>>> point). >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 14:51, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> a >>>>> écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not clear on the versioning you're proposing. Are you saying >>>>> that the >>>>>> first release of this subproject would be ActiveMQ Leto 1.0? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Justin >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Robbie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My point is about "classic". I understand the meaning but I think >>>>> it’s not >>>>>>> a good "tagging". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don’t want to focus on ActiveMQ 5.x, because it prevents us to use >>>>>>> another versioning. >>>>>>> Why not ActiveMQ 6.0 that would be a new major ActiveMQ release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To summarize: >>>>>>> 1. ActiveMQ 5.x is too restrictive for versioning >>>>>>> 2. Classic is not a good "naming/tagging". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s why I’m proposing a new identified name. It means we would >>>>> have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Artemis >>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Leto >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IMHO, it’s two subprojects under the same "umbrella" (like we have >>>>> Camel >>>>>>> K, Camel Spring Boot, Camel Karaf, or Karaf runtime, Karaf >>>>> Decanter, Karaf >>>>>>> Cave, etc). >>>>>>> Each subproject deserves a clear naming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About the website, you got my point: I would like to get all wiki >>>>> based >>>>>>> resources, update and clean it to push on a dedicated sub context >>>>> of the >>>>>>> website: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < >>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto <http://activemq.apache.org/leto> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Each with its own announcement, download, documentation resources. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 12:19, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> >>>>> a >>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The 'classic' terminology on the homepage is used more as a >>>>>>>> description rather than a name to me, speaking to its quality and >>>>>>>> vintage and in some small straightforward way. ActiveMQ 5 is still >>>>> the >>>>>>>> way the broker is referenced on the site as a whole so far as I >>>>> see, >>>>>>>> rather than ActiveMQ Classic. Essentially everywhere besides the >>>>>>>> subdir name being 'classic' in the URL for grouping some of the >>>>> newest >>>>>>>> component pages. I dont think 'Leto' is particularly more useful >>>>> than >>>>>>>> 'classic' as a description, and especially not an improvement for >>>>> the >>>>>>>> subdir in the URL at this point. It would be quite the opposite >>>>> for me >>>>>>>> personally, I think it would be a bad idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Changing the subdir on the site from 'classic' to something else >>>>>>>> simplistic and direct such as 5 or 5x or 5.x? Sure, I can see that. >>>>>>>> Dropping the "Classic" description suffix from the central box on >>>>> the >>>>>>>> homepage, leaving only the ActiveMQ 5 titling? By all means. Leto? >>>>> I >>>>>>>> dont really see that being an improvement at this point at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On your other proposal of cleaning up mess, presumably that means >>>>> the >>>>>>>> mass of old 5.x wiki-derived pages on the site in the root (done to >>>>>>>> preserve URLs during the site changeover I believe, over >>>>>>>> individual-page redirects) that are rarely ever touched, and moving >>>>>>>> such content into the subdir? Sounds great. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Robbie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:30, Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to bring on the table the naming of Apache ActiveMQ. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think "Classic" is not a good name, and it doesn’t mean >>>>> anything. I >>>>>>> think it would make more sense to have a generic name. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As we have Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, I would like to propose Apache >>>>>>> ActiveMQ Leto. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From a cultural standpoint ;), Artemis is the Greek goddess of the >>>>>>> hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. Artemis >>>>> is the >>>>>>> daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. >>>>>>>>> As "ActiveMQ Classic" is "older" than Artemis, I propose to >>>>> rename as >>>>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Leto. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This name change won’t impact the code repository, it’s more for >>>>> the >>>>>>> website. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Related to that proposal, I would like to propose also to create a >>>>>>> dedicated space for Leto: http://activemq.apache.org/leto < >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto> with a complete cleanup of the >>>>> mess we >>>>>>> have today (documentation, download page, announcements, etc). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
