I am ok with whatever makes sense to distinguish the brokers. If people are starting to use "classic" that is fine. As I previously said I don't think we necessarily need to make the naming discussion as part of the versioning discussion.
I am planning to leave this thread open for another day or so to see if there is more feedback but if there's no big objections I will start a vote thread for just bumping the AMQ version to 6.0.0 and we can leave open the discussion for what to do about the "Classic" name as a separate topic. On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:14 AM Jean-Louis Monteiro < jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > Same, when I have to mention both in the same discussion, I tend to add > "classic" for ActiveMQ to make sure there is no confusion with Artemis. > But that's basically it. > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:43 AM Arthur Naseef <artnas...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
