But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
activemq6 and the future of activemq.
Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract
a community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking
at all about technical merits. Apollo has its brilliant lines of code
and so does HornetQ, I am sure.
After all that's been said, my opinion and advice would be for you the
HornetQ crowd to ask the pmc for a rename. My understanding is that the
intent is not to morph the two projects, but keep HornetQ as a better
alternative/replacement for ActiveMQ in the future. If that is true,
staying honest and not blurring the branding lines, shows your pride
with the better project and you'd have to work hard to convince users
that you have something better to offer and grow a community.
Keep in mind that the ActiveMQ PMC is just the sponsoring entity, that
is responsible to guide hornetq through the process of incubation.
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 03:27 PM, Andy Taylor wrote:
+1 and we have already started mining some of the amq5 code and this
will continue. Whats great about HornetQ is its engine, its threading
model, io and journal. take this core and take the functionality that
amq5 has and I think you will end up with a great project and also allow
a path for future development for the ActiveMQ community and so the name
should reflect that in one way or another. I dont see this as any
different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve.
On 24/03/15 18:53, David Jencks wrote:
I think that a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration that activemq has no
long term future. My understanding of the situation is quite limited, but since
there's already been one attempt to replace the broker (apollo) and no attempt to
modernize the existing broker, I'd guess that it is not feasible. After apollo, I
haven't seen the existing amq community start a new broker project inside activemq,
it's been maybe a couple years, so I expect it won't happen. so, sure hornetQ could
be a different project, mine some external code from amq, and wait for amq to die.
As I tried to indicate before, the only real way forward I see is for the existing
amq community to get behind making the former hornetQ codebase a real amq 5
replacement. What if you put the same amount of energy into adapting some amq code
to hornetQ as you do objecting to it's presence? I don't understand why everyone
isn't saying, "wow, someone just gave us a many-dev-years of code advanced
broker, lo
o
k
at all the work I don't have to do!!, what can I do to help take advantage of
it?"
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:36 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote:
What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6? That question keeps
coming to mind.
At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical
perspective. But considering the community and Apache involvement, the
answer to that question becomes more complex.
Naming releases of HornetQ at activemq-6.0.0-M1 presumes that HornetQ will
succeed to replace ActiveMQ, and acts as a warning to all activemq users
that the change is coming. But what if it does not succeed? Either on
technical merits or on building community?
The right path from the beginning has always been the incubator path. Let
HornetQ prove itself as an Apache project and viable alternative to ActiveMQ
without any attempt at using the ActiveMQ brand.
Since HornetQ has been donated into ActiveMQ, we could certainly look to
take some of the code from HornetQ and merge it into the existing ActiveMQ
code base.
No matter how we move forward, the issue of building community and HornetQ
proving itself is the same. So, the question then becomes - what benefit is
there to ActiveMQ and the ActiveMQ community? If we cannot enumerate a
valid benefit for the community, then it does not belong there.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693742.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
