Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x, but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
On your commends about JBoss. I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project. Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own versions, such as: Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR Apache Kafka with Confluent Apache Ignite with GridGain They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the upstream Apache projects. On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based on ActiveMQ 5.X. Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this discussion IMO. On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others transitioning from their previous version. Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that: * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X (https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html) * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration) * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it: * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io Cheers Mike > On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: > > -1 I think we need to slow down. > > While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a > single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made. > Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are > deprecating AMQ 5 now. > > For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at > this point" shows a lack of clarity itself. If we were truly methodical, > then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name > ActiveMQ 6. > > ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves > the greatest of attention and care. > > Questions coming to mind for making this decision: > * What is the full list of features needed? > * How much adoption does Artemis have? > * How stable is Artemis? > * What features will be dropped? Scheduler? HTTP endpoints? ... > > Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022. > > Notice it's still open after more than 8 months. It impacts OpenWire > support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward > transition for customers as possible. > > Please start to enumerate these points. > > BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7" > is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more > confusion. > > ALSO - one big point. This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the > vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with > having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of > these discussions and votes on the PMC list. > > I'll post the link there now. > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
