I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from. On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Clebert, > the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my perspective > we would love to have the code base. > We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of > Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ. > > Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing an import. > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ > > > On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Clebert, >> >> That sounds very interesting! Bringing the HornetQ community into >> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me. We could collaborate and bring >> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to create >> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer >> community at the same time. Lots of folks have been asking me when >> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has JMS >> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book! >> >> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation >> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly >> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and >> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building projects >> is more about community than code. I have been pondering porting >> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based but >> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo, >> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work. >> >> :) >> >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS broker >>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning >>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about >>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the >>> ActiveMQ community. >>> >>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and >>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to join >>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time >>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of >>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work >>> there. >>> >>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a basis for >>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current limitations. >>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance >>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already supports >>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and >>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could >>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of >>> HornetQ. >>> >>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just >>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a donation of >>> the HornetQ codebase. >>> >>> Thanks and best regards, >>> Clebert. >> >> >> >> -- >> Hiram Chirino >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >> [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino > > > > -- > http://redhat.com > http://blog.garytully.com
-- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
