I agree with Rob there.
Regards
JB
On 08/20/2014 05:49 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
It might be better to hold off doing to much work a head of time, you
want to be build a community of developers around this :)
Clebert Suconic <mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
20 August 2014 16:43
Meanwhile we are making our technical work. OpenWire is already part of our
master (one of the tasks we would need to have accomplished before we could
make any releases out of the new codebase). And making a lot of progress on
AMQP.
It's just paperwork now.. we will give an update here soon as I said.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
paperwork that needs to be filled up.
We will have an update soon.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
richardkettele...@gmail.com> wrote:
Any progress on this? Just curious.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath<sirinath19...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
projects.
Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suco...@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Clebert Suconic <mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
20 August 2014 16:42
We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
paperwork that needs to be filled up.
We will have an update soon.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
Richard Kettelerij <mailto:richardkettele...@gmail.com>
16 August 2014 09:38
Any progress on this? Just curious.
sirinath <mailto:sirinath19...@gmail.com>
31 July 2014 10:18
Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
projects.
Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Clebert Suconic <mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
8 July 2014 15:31
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.
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
