That is how I refer to them, or more fully as ActiveMQ 5.x like below, and ActiveMQ Artemis.
Same as last time this was discussed, I dont consider "Classic" part of the actual name, just a reflective description label, quoted for a reason. On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 12:48, fpapon <fpa...@apache.org> wrote: > > Why not simply ActiveMQ and Artemis? > > This is how people used to name the 2 projects, I never eared someone > say "ActiveMQ Classic". > > regards, > > François > > On 12/09/2023 13:07, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > Same thoughts as last time you proposed it really. Adding Leto would > > not be an improvement for me, more actually the reverse. I think it's > > fine as it is, ActiveMQ 5.x / 6.x, adding Leto would be more > > confusing. Describing something as 'classic' is a pretty normal / > > well-known thing, I think a user even noted that on the original > > thread. > > > > On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 10:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > >> 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. > >>>> > -- > -- > François >
