+1
On 12/09/2023 16:15, Jeff Genender wrote:
+1 to what Christopher said... I have rarely heard AMQ 5.x being referred to as classic. Most of
our users just say "ActiveMQ" or "Artemis".
Jeff
On 2023/09/12 13:44:15 Christopher Shannon wrote:
I don't really see a need for "Classic" and I think it should be dropped.
No one uses it and just refers to it as "ActiveMQ 5.x".
ActiveMQ Artemis has had its own versioning and brand since the beginning
going back many years so I don't think getting rid of "Classic" is an issue
or would lead to any confusion since as I said, no one uses it anyways.
So I think it makes sense to just go with what JB said for now:
- ActiveMQ 5.18.x
- ActiveMQ 6.x.x
- ActiveMQ 7.x.x
- ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x
- ActiveMQ Artemis 3.x
That would be quite clear as to what each version is.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:27 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
That makes lot of sense to me ! We will have:
- ActiveMQ 5.18.x
- ActiveMQ 6.x.x
- ActiveMQ 7.x.x
- ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x
- ActiveMQ Artemis 3.x
So, I propose to have two "spaces" on website:
http://activemq.apache.org/activemq
http://activemq.apache.org/artemis
The index.html will list the two spaces and users will go to one or
another.
Thoughts ?
Regards
JB
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 3:08 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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
