I was just speaking to the WHY such a drastic change is needed. Not the, 'will it succeed' :)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>> >>> >> > -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
