On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net > wrote:
> I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing > goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies marketing > pushes for a major release based on a feature set as they think they can > sell it better. As an open source project ActiveMQ/Artemis has the luxury > to not being pushed by marketing. > > I currently do not see any bigger breaking API changes This thread has some more info: http://activemq-dev.markmail.org/search/?q=possible%202.0.0#query:possible%202.0.0+page:1+mid:bt5v5z3l7n575vwc+state:results > but I am not so much into the Artemis internals. Until now I was only > involved in the OSGi support. > I also think it is very good to talk about the upcoming or planned > features. I would make the list rather small though as in my experience the > actual features going into the code often differ from the plannings as > quite many people are involved at apache projects and the amount of work > they put in often can not be predicted well. So I would only look one or > two minor versions ahead most of the time. > > Christian > > On 08.12.2016 16:50, Matt Pavlovich 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 >> > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com > >
