Look, I'm they guy who wrote most of ActiveMQ Apollo. I would not have taken on such a task if there was not a good reason. I also would not be welcoming the hornetq project if I did not feel it was better path forward than Apollo. Please feel free to run the SPEC JMS benchmark against HornetQ and ActiveMQ if you want some metrics.
Seems you don't believe in that there is a technical market out there that this project is competing in. Trust me there is, and it's not all roses for ActiveMQ right now. ActiveMQ is only as popular as it is because of how long it's been around and because of the relationships it it's built with other projects like OpenEJB, MCollective etc. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:47 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > That's all marketing. Are there metrics to back it up? > > Last I understood, there is a very strong community using ActiveMQ. > > Old isn't much of an argument. For example, it was built before NIO, and > yet it now supports NIO. > > Are there more specifics? Feedback on which no action can be taken is > purely criticism, and I don't appreciate ActiveMQ being called a dinasour. > Java, C, C++, Javascript, and others have been around even longer than > ActiveMQ - will you deprecate them all? > > If there are critical issues behind ActiveMQ, let's get them out in the > open. This is reminding me of the HawtIO discussion from last year - a lot > of emotion behind it, but ultimately not much strength of reasoning. > > Let me turn this around. If we can't clearly enumerate the benefit to the > ActiveMQ community (which is a deal-breaker for me), then why not start > HornetQ as its own Apache project? Where is the downside? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693757.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
