Hi Bruce, Taking my user cap, I don’t see Artemis of ActiveMQ more than Kafka or something else.
The startup script is different, the configuration is different, even the features are different. So, I agree to present Artemis as an alternative to ActiveMQ, but I don’t see why "forcing" user to update. Anyone can maintain and use any version of project. Regards JB > Le 19 mars 2021 à 21:05, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I don't see the need or the point of taking Artemis toward becoming a TLP. > This would further segregate everything and probably wouldn't make sense to > the board. We need to fulfill the plans we made initially when HornetQ was > donated. > > The main thing preventing any movement toward Artemis as the next gen > broker is because we have not been selling/messaging it this way to the > user community. In the six years since HornetQ was donated, we have not > published any plans for the community (i.e., on the website) describing the > intended plan. I think this is due to the fact that most folks were focused > on Artemis development and working on moving toward feature parity with > ActiveMQ Classic. We need to change this. So, let's develop a plan and > publish it. > > Bruce > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:18 PM Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback Mike, these are all fair points. There is certainly >> a lot to consider before any vote is started as splitting stuff up would be >> a big deal. In terms of PMC I would think anyone on the current PMC should >> be able to be on either or both if they want. >> >> For what it is worth this is what happened last time a formal vote was >> started without any real discussion ahead of time: >> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Graduate-Artemis-as-TLP-tp4733584.html >> As you can see it did not go well. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:51 PM Michael André Pearce >> <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>> So i personally don’t see the need to change anything, apart from maybe >>> some project clarity from the PMC. Im not really seeing the value tbh. >>> >>> As in previously it has been defined that ActiveMQ Artemis would become >>> ActiveMQ 6 eventually. If that’s not the case and simply we say that the >>> two projects live on and evolve and no longer Artemis is planned as the >>> successor that’s fine, we just need to declare that, a little more >> formally >>> along with some kind of guidance which broker is best to choose for whom. >>> This seems like a much lower cost approach, to going nuclear with project >>> separations. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding if there was a split to a new separate TLPs, a few bits i would >>> want to know before i would vote for this as PMC, and really this is why >> i >>> don’t think its the best idea to split everything, because there’s a lot >> to >>> sort to split it all up, for what real value? >>> >>> >>> Anyhow some queries very quickly come to mind for me is: >>> >>> Would all PMC and Committers get rights to all new TLP’s automatically? >>> >>> Both brokers and the clients we create rely on OpenWire protocol and aim >>> to support all its features, if OpenWire protocol evolves (which it may >>> need to do) atm this lives on in the classic sub project (aka ActiveMQ >> 5.x) >>> so this is fine whilst everything is under the same umbrella, as we have >>> therefor the same PMC to handle that in both projects. >>> >>> Do we want to therefor also split out OpenWire as its own project, so it >>> has a shared governance for both future projects? Similar to that AMQP >> has >>> its own separate governance that both brokers just adhere to? >>> >>> Further to that then and if so where do OpenWire clients all (JMS >>> OpenWire, NMS OpenWire, CMS OpenWire sit? In the OpenWire project? >>> >>> Likewise where does bits like PooledConnectionFactory that can be shared >>> and but sits in ActiveMQ code base atm then move to? I assume it might >> move >>> with the JMS OpenWire client. >>> >>> Ok great but then where does the CMS/NMS apis governance sit (not >>> implementation)? Do we sit that still in ActiveMQ? Do we move it to its >> own >>> TLP? Do we move it to OpenWire? >>> >>> >>> Lastly, what about naming? I don’t like the idea of just Apache Artemis, >>> nor ArtemisMQ , for me it was named Artemis simply because of the >> previous >>> dumped Apollo project, maybe a better named should be found? And then >> what >>> about existing users, the code base is littered with >>> org.apache.activemq.artemis.* if TLP move occurred, there’d need to be >> some >>> package migration that would need to be done in a non breaking fashion >>> where people have developed on and around the current code base apis and >>> packaged. >>> >>> >>> As such id like to see much more a proposed plan for everything before >> any >>> vote. >>> >>> Best >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 19 Mar 2021, at 16:27, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Fair enough, let’s wait more PMC/dev feedback. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:25, Christopher Shannon < >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to see more PMC members chime in to get thoughts and continue >>> the >>>>> discussion before proposing a vote. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:10 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> 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 < >>>>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> 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 < >>> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> 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 < >>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net >>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <bruce.sny...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> <mailto: >>>>>>>>> bruce.sny...@gmail.com>> 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 < >> gary.tu...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com>> 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 < >>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net >>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" < >>> jbert...@apache.org >>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid <mailto: >>> tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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" < >>> j...@nanthrax.net >>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>> jbert...@apache.org >>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > 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/>
