I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming. Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference clear, and let end users make informed choices down the road. Presenting as AMQ6 as is takes the choice away be virtue of how its marketed. -J On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping > HornetQ does well. > > The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community? > > "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
