> On Sep 12, 2023, at 7:15 AM, Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org> 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".
Same. I've never heard anyone contact us and say "Classic". Always just
"ActiveMQ" and "Artemis"
-David
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
