So next will be ActiveMQ 5.x, ActiveMQ 6.x and Artemis?
On 12/09/2023 14:14, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
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
