David,
It seems to me that the message does not come across as intended. I
don't see why releasing hornet as activemq-hornet as opposed to
activemq-6.x would doom activemq. I totally get your point and agree
with it, except the part where "amq is gonna die".
Nobody scared apollo, nobody is scaring hornet. As an incubating project
it needs to build a community.
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 04:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:
To me it means that the existing amq community doesn't want to enter the modern
world and would rather hornetQ hadn't come here. Sorry to be blunt, but it
seems to me that there's a lot more effort being expended on objecting to the
hornetQ donation and trying to get the new committers to just go away than to
integrating the code bases.
Thanks Hiram for making it a bit more explicit why amq is gonna die without a
new broker from somewhere. Frankly I can't believe your good fortune here. If
you scare away hornetQ I don't think anyone's about to give you another broker
and I don't see anyone here writing a new one after apollo.
I'll try to shut up now.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, "Jamie G." <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
