I remember the startup script being added. It was kinda copyied that from Tomcat with the use of the INSTANCE and HOME concepts.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:04 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The startup script is different, > > The startup script actually is copied from Apollo, which was one of > the best features from Apollo. The initial commit was done by Hiram > where he brought the $APOLLO_INSTANCE and $APOLLO_HOME concepts into > artemis, the create broker... everything here came from Apollo... and > it was really nice addition BTW. > > > >> the configuration is different > > I don't think the config is a big deal... I would actually move out of > XML in a near future. > > > >> even the features are different. > > We have always taken the ActiveMQ feature set and worked around it.. > this is not being updated for a while, so the feature parity is even > higher now: > > > This list actually came a few years ago when we had that discussion: > > https://activemq.apache.org/activemq-artemis-roadmap > > > > > Besides I don't think myself as an outsider of the ActiveMQ Community. > For instance, 2 ActiveMQ committers who have been more committers on > Artemis codebase more than anything dedicated a lot of their time into > the website update. > > That was Martyn Talylor (who is actually the author of the new Logo), > and Mike Pearce... > > I know both of them used a lot of non billable hours away from their > family time to update the website while doing volunteer work hours on > open source. Denying that now and saying Artemis committers are a > separate project is not even fair to these contributions. > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:26 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > > > [email protected]> 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 > > >> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Fair enough, let’s wait more PMC/dev feedback. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards > > >>>> JB > > >>>> > > >>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:25, Christopher Shannon < > > >>> [email protected]> 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 < > > >> [email protected]> > > >>>>> 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 < > > >>>>>> [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/> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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/> > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- 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/>
