On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 15:13 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 12/05/2014 09:25 PM, Steve Huston wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I don't speak for Red Hat, but I can say that Red Hat != Apache Qpid. The > > Apache Qpid future is still bright with plenty of effort behind it on all > > the various facets (C++, Java, proton, dispatch, etc.) > > I don't speak for Red Hat in any official category either. Steve is > absolutely right that Apache Qpid is bigger than any company; that is > the beauty of the open governance at Apache. > > That said, as a Red Hat employee, I am still working hard on Qpid in > different areas, as are many of my colleagues. The Apache Qpid project > is first and foremost a *community* interested in developing software to > aid and further the adoption of AMQP. Red Hat remain completely > committed to collaborating with the Qpid community to achieve that goal.
+1 I also don't speak for Red Hat (just work for them) but am also still working full time on Qpid and don't expect that to change any time soon. > > The Qpid community is also bigger than any one software component it > produces. Over time, new solutions may emerge that are better than > previous attempts, and this may divert focus of some developers. The > 'federation' capabilities built in to qpidd for example informed and > inspired a better solution in the form of Dispatch Router. Work is > underway to develop a new JMS client (a collaboration between Qpid and > ActiveMQ) that will be an improvement on the existing one(s) etc. > > Of course, a balance needs to be found between continuity and backwards > compatibility on the one hand, and innovative new solutions on the other. > > The promise of AMQP is interoperability between different components. > With 1.0 I really hope we make that more of a reality. The support from > ActiveMQ - also an openly governed, open source project here at Apache - > is evidence of real progress there. However with more than three > distinct Apache-governed, open-sourced, AMQP compliant brokers, it may > not make sense to replicate every feature in each of them and again that > may impact the focus of particular developers. > > We do need to get better at formulating and communicating roadmaps for > the Qpid community, to enable better, more effective collaboration that > stays attuned to users needs. I do believe though, as Steve says, that > the future is bright for Qpid! > > > I have customers that have placed large bets on Apache Qpid-based systems. > > They expect returns. > > > > -Steve Huston > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: tom peterson [mailto:2tompeter...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:24 PM > >> To: users@qpid.apache.org; d...@qpid.apache.org > >> Subject: Does RH MRG End of Life have an Effect on QPID? > >> > >> It seems RH is EOL'ing MRG and is pushing A-MQ (ActiveMQ underneath) as > >> their enterprise messaging solution. Does this change in direction have an > >> effect QPID's status moving forward? We are looking at using QPID on a > >> project but want to make sure that it is not being EOL'd as well. > >> > >> Thanks for any advice you can render. > >> > >> tom > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
