+1 On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 8:45 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > > On Jul 10, 2023, at 9:45 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > Hi Justin, > > > > It has been discussed but not the name specifically. > > > > As we use apache/activemq-artemis, I thought "logical" to use > > apache/activemq (but maybe activemq-classic makes more sense). > > > > I'm not sure we will be able to use apache/activemq/classic and > > apache/activemq/artemis, but we can definitely use > > apache/activemq-classic as apache/activemq-artemis. > > > > I can rename right now. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 3:57 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> This weekend JB announced [1] the availability of official Docker images > >> for ActiveMQ "Classic" in the "apache/activemq" namespace [2]. > >> > >> Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall (and can't find) any discussion > of > >> or notification about this. Users will certainly expect images for both > >> "Classic" and Artemis so my concern is regarding the namespace. If both > >> "Classic" and Artemis share the apache/activemq namespace directly then > >> there may eventually be version number conflicts and there certainly > will > >> be confusion about which version is which. > >> > >> Before these images are widely adopted I think the namespace should be > >> clarified just as it is on the website so that ActiveMQ "Classic" uses > >> "apache/activemq/classic" and ActiveMQ Artemis uses > >> "apache/activemq/artemis". > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> > >> Justin > >> > >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/4cqbm0gsbj184vrp13yorcd2rrbdcsmx > >> [2] https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/activemq/tags > >
