ActiveMQ 5.x + 6.x, ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x yes...i.e no change.
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 13:34, Francois Papon <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > > 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 > >>
