+1 for consolidation. I've experience with both ActiveMQ and HornetQ and both are great brokers with their own strengths and weaknesses. More importantly there's a very large overlap. Combining both in one would be huge!
I do belief it's important to keep a narrow focus in order to avoid ending up with a new but overly bloated product. Also as Daniel mentioned the HornetQ docs are great. I think it makes sense to use the same (docbook, gitbook, etc) style for a new HornetQ+ActiveMQ product. Regards, Richard http://richardlog.com On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Matthew Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 Consolidation should lead to a stronger overall product, and hopefully > more active contributors and a larger combined user base =) > > On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:31 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. > >
