It's a solution to the simple problem of having the ActiveMQ brand remain competitive.
The architecture of ActiveMQ 5.x was created before even NIO existed. So it has some serious competitive drawbacks. As other less popular open source messaging system become more well known which HAVE been developed to take better advantage of modern commodity hardware, ActiveMQ starts to look like a dinosaur by comparison. ActiveMQ could do so much better in terms of performance and stability. So if you do love ActiveMQ and what this project represents (a ASF developed cross platform, cross protocol, and transactional messaging broker), then having a future version which can continue to compete with newer messaging systems is kinda of a no-brainer. It's understandable that folks are resistant to change. But change is needed or else end users will eventually consider this project irrelevant. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:21 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. -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
