On Friday, April 10, 2015, redboy1972 <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the response. > > Very saddened to hear this but expected this to be the response. > > By the way, I really appreciated your posts at: > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-apollo/blob/trunk/apollo-stomp/src/test/scala/org/apache/activemq/apollo/stomp/test/UserOwnershipSecurityFactory.scala#L29 > and > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-apollo/blob/trunk/apollo-stomp/src/test/resources/apollo-stomp-custom-security.xml#L18 > > As they allowed me to figure out how to do my own custom authorization. > > See: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29424952/dynamic-destination-in-apache-apollo-mq/29527865#29527865 > > Back to my question: > According to https://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html, it > appears > as if the lessons learned in Apollo would be used to enhance a future > ActiveMQ 6 line. Is this still planned? If so will it be something usable > by my company by Q4? >
Well that's the plan. But words are cheap. Need to find time to actually do it! > I have been testing brokers for 3 weeks and Apollo's characteristics are > hands down the best. Something was done VERY right. Gratz. > > Great! Mind telling us more details about you liked about Apollo and disliked about the other brokers? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Future-of-Apollo-tp4694644p4694737.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
