+1
Hadrian
On 03/19/2015 06:04 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
At some point, it could well make sense to call the HornetQ release ActiveMQ 6
- but not yet. This has caused a lot of confusion- it should be called
something else ??
On 19 Mar 2015, at 19:40, Kevin Burton <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it. Maybe just on the
HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
I think it’s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different things.
Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ? if so
perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote:
ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
5.x.
The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for HornetQ.
Yes, it's confusing.
Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
(https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
ActiveMQ -
until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other. If you catch me
using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack me
in the back of the head ;-).
I'm sorry for your confusion. It is a major concern that you were confused
and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
upgrading ActiveMQ.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693463.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
