HornetQ taking over for ActiveMQ is a possibility whether it shares the name of not, and nobody is arguing that it should not try. In fact, I hope I have made it clear that I am rooting for it to continue on and take the challenge.
The question remains - why does it have to use the ActiveMQ name to do so? And, again, what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community? "A newer, better ActiveMQ" is a vague argument - where are the details to show this? As the carries of the mantle of ActiveMQ, we need to be thorough on a product of such importance to the community. Being able to run one metric that shows it is faster under some set of conditions is not adequate. I could easily write a few lines of code that "pass messages" and outperforms ActiveMQ and HornetQ. How would it perform with a JMS interface in front of it, transactions, persistence, etc? That would be a totally different matter altogether. Likewise, as HornetQ adds functionality and complexity, how will it continue to perform, and will it really be better than ActiveMQ? That remains unclear. Also, I don't appreciate the "old and crufty" argument. There is definitely room for improvement in the ActiveMQ code base - so let's make it better. Where are the folks who make these statements working to make it better? And, of course, anyone who feels ActiveMQ is old-and-crufty is free to leave and work on something else. Please don't turn into a force that only attacks ActiveMQ and harps on negatives; those actions do not move ActiveMQ forward. ActiveMQ is a world-class solution that is doing the job for many, many companies and governments at very large scales. That will continue for the foreseeable future. Last year, "old and crufty" was the argument for HawtIO to replace the built-in web console. After HawtIO was removed from ActiveMQ, how many of the folks that said the console was in need of repair took up further action to improve it? I took up such action, and so did a handful of others, but I don't recall seeing anyone pushing HawtIO doing the same. So please look at your own actions before accusing others of only hindering progress. Again, HornetQ should continue on. And perhaps one day it will replace ActiveMQ. But, if we cannot clearly define a benefit to the ActiveMQ community to declaring today that HornetQ is activemq-6, then let's stop this waste of effort and move it where it belongs - as its own project. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693767.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
