As a general practice, I try to avoid unqualified + qualified names together - it gets confusing. However, in this case, we have a long-established history.
I believe that a formal rename of ActiveMQ would be fairly disruptive for a small amount of value. For the record - I have heard, and started using, the term "ActiveMQ Classic" when talking about ActiveMQ + Artemis in the same discussion. Art On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 1:52 PM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > >>>>>>> > >>> > >> > >
