As a follow up question, is there a good reason to not have HornetQ in the name?
It clearly lets users know its different, will help them when searching for historical solutions to setup/configs. -J On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
