That's correct.
Justin On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 7:22 PM 穆 建江 <[email protected]> wrote: > In previous email, you said: > > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the > ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with > the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all > the great features and usability that the community had come to expect long > with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the next generation > of messaging applications. > > " an ActiveMQ broker with ..." here is artemis, isn’t it? > > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2022年3月4日 11:29 > 收件人: [email protected] > 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis? > > > Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. > > A modified version of the HornetQ code-base was the basis for the initial > donation to the ActiveMQ community back in late October 2015. Of course, > since that time the code-base has been heavily modified via over 9,000 > commits from over 170 different contributors. > > > At the same time, how to support activemq was considered. > > I'm not clear on what you're asking here. Can you clarify your question? > > > Justin > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:12 PM 穆 建江 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At > > the same time, how to support activemq was considered. > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:[email protected]] > > 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50 > > 收件人: [email protected] > > 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis? > > > > > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the > > ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache... > > > > This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion. > > > > > > Justin > > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation > > > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, > > > non-blocking architecture for improved scalability and performance, > > > an architecture designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. > > > high-volume, low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The > > > goal, as I understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of > the future. > > > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's > > > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't > > > imagine that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots > > > of users out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of > > > different reasons, and there are developers in the community who are > > > committed to > > supporting "Classic." > > > > > > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same > > > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want > > > those features for a smooth transition. Of course there are > > > differences between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the > > > documentation for > > more details on that. > > > > > > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first > > > released (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management > > > Committee here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other > > > developers in the community started looking at ways to deal with the > > > performance and scalability limitations inherent in the broker's > > > architecture. They ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called > > > "Apollo" where these ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release > > > was announced in early 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the > > > Apollo subproject was designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the > > > future. However, the early excitement around Apollo never coalesced > > > into sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was mainly due to the > > > fact that Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java which was > > > used by ActiveMQ. However, the architectural underpinnings were > > > solid and not terribly different from what was being implemented in > > > the JBoss community in the HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of > > > developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to > > > discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of > > > creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the > > > great features and usability that the community had come to expect > > > along with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the > > > next generation of messaging applications. The donation was accepted > > > and the aforementioned goal has been in progress > > ever since. > > > > > > I hope that helps answer some of your questions. > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM [email protected] < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and > > >> artemis? > > >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is > devleped? > > >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future? > > >> > > > > > >
