Hey Gary - in all the discussion, I missed this response, so forgive my slow response.
First, let me apologize for my use of the word "take" - it sounds it was read as an attack or accusation, and that was not my intent. I simply meant, "why is it important that HornetQ be called AMQ-6?" On the point that AMQ needs a v6, can you tell me why that itself is important? Please be specific - I have seen many comments made that really are just restatements of the line that ActiveMQ needs a new broker, but no real detail to discuss behind that. When I look at those statements, I have to balance them with my belief of ActiveMQ's popularity, market penetration, and ongoing efforts to add ActiveMQ into companies. Also, have you considered the possibility that naming Apollo "AMQ-6" has contributed apparent lack of innovation? In other words, isn't it a concern that it will be hard to encourage innovation on the current product, ActiveMQ 5.x, as long as there's a promise of a very different ActiveMQ 6.x? I know that even causes me to pause. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4694026.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
