I agree. If no objection, I would start a vote to propose Artemis as TLP.
Thoughts ? Regards JB > Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:00, Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > I personally feel that renaming Classic to Leto has the potential to > further confuse people. I'd be +1 on Artemis becoming its own TLP. > > Jon > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:37 PM Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> JB, >> >> Right, I am a user of both products also. I am still a heavy 5.x/Classic >> user but I also am still trying to get my project/team onto Artemis as well >> but migration is always slow. I'm also working quite heavily with Kafka now >> as well which has taken up a lot of my time and prevented me from having as >> much interaction with AMQ recently. Having a separate TLP does not stop >> anyone from contributing and using both projects but it does make things a >> lot easier I think in terms of naming, versioning, etc. I think it also >> just adds a lot more clarity for the users. Also, even as its own TLP, >> there is no reason why Artemis can't still have a goal to be feature >> compliant with ActiveMQ 5.x. >> >> A pretty good example about how things are confusing right now is Artemis >> has been advertised as the next generation but there has been a lot of >> discussion recently about 5.x release cycles, upgrading the datastore, JMS >> 2.0 upgrades, etc. Basically it looks like it is still being actively >> development (which it is) so a user might be pretty confused about which >> broker to pick and what is going on long term. >> >> Anyways, I can only speak for myself so maybe most people still think the >> two projects should stay together under 1 umbrella. If I am in the minority >> and most people want to keep everything together that is fine. >> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> I’m sharing the same feeling and analyze. >>> >>> Even if I plan to work more on Artemis (first PR will happen soon ;)), >> the >>> current situation is what you describe: we have two communities. >>> >>> It’s not a bad thing IMHO, it happens in all projects, with time and >>> resulting of some decisions taken. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 16:02, Christopher Shannon < >>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>> The real issue here is quite obvious and demonstrated over the last >>> several >>>> years and that is the goal isn't really agreed upon by everyone. Some >>>> people think the goal should be to make Artemis the next generation and >>>> others don't agree with that. >>>> >>>> Personally, while I still think having one broker to rally upon and >> make >>>> the best broker possible (Artemis) should be the goal, the realist in >> me >>>> does not believe this will ever happen without significant push back >> from >>>> the members of the community that do not want this to happen. >>>> >>>> Over the past couple of years my opinion has swayed now to simply >> making >>>> Artemis its own TLP. Even after 6 years we have 2 separate communities >>>> entirely. We basically have 2 independent projects with almost no >> overlap >>>> between developers and users so why not just make Artemis its own TLP? >> I >>>> really see no benefit of operating under the same umbrella anymore (I >>> guess >>>> maybe if you want to keep the branding) >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis >>>> >>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq < >>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> < >> 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] >> <mailto: >>> [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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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/ >>> < >>> >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ >>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/ >>> <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] <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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/> >>> >>> >>
