Is it a good time to talk about ActiveMQ "Something" instead of "Classic" ? (I hate this "classic" naming (it sounds weird to me) and most of people uses simply Artemis and ActiveMQ as name)
I proposed ActiveMQ Artemis and ActiveMQ Leto (Leto is the mother of Artemis in Greek mythology) to have a clear distinction between the two subprojects. Thoughts ? :) If it's too "sensible", please ignore :) Regards JB On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:11 AM Gary Tully <gtu...@apache.org> wrote: > > makes sense, but please keep a clear distinction - activemq classic 6.0.0 > activemq X may still evolve to combine the best of both. > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 22:15, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > First, I realize that this thread is likely to cause a fight based on past > > history and probably not go anywhere, but with the work being done > > with Jakarta for AMQ 5.x I think it's time to at least bring up the > > ActiveMQ 6.0 discussion. > > > > With all the breaking changes currently targeted for version 5.19.x, such > > as the Jakarta switch from javax, requiring JDK 17, major Spring and Jetty > > upgrades and now potentially major OSGi changes, it makes zero sense to me > > to have this next AMQ version as version 5.19.0 as it's completely > > incompatible with the previous version 5.18.x. Users are likely going to be > > in for a rude awakening when trying to upgrade and will be quite confused > > as to why so much is different. > > > > The Jakarta changes should really be a major version upgrade so that it's > > much more clear to users that it's very different from the previous > > version. Another major benefit of going with version 6.0 is that it frees > > up the previous javax releases to continue on with 5.19 or 5.20 because we > > will likely need to support the older javax releases for quite a while. > > > > Also, from my point of view it seems pretty clear that the original goal > > for Artemis to become AMQ 6.0.0 is never going to happen. Artemis has had > > its own branding and versioning for several years now and will likely > > continue that way and not change so I don't really see that as a reason to > > not bump AMQ 5.x to 6.x with all the major breaking changes. > > > > Anyways, I figure there won't be much agreement here but thought I should > > at least throw it out there before we go and release 5.19.x with such major > > breaking changes. > >
