Gotcha.. that sounds good. Thanks.
On 12/8/16 11:05 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
I think Christian's issue is not with feature parity being a marketing goal
but the fact that you aligned a major bump with a feature set rather than
API changes etc.
we have had this conversation a couple of times and altho its a good idea
the discussion just goes of on all tangents since everyone wants different
new functionality. I would suggest raising a Jira per enhancement and
discuss each individually.
On 8 December 2016 at 15:50, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Christian-
Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
goal is to kick off a conversation.
I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For
Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features need
to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and prioritize
those features.
-Matt
On 12/8/16 1:52 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
clients.
For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
enough.
Christian
2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com>:
*** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will
detail
out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
Thoughts?
