+1. >From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not necessarily the details of how we get there. I agree there are some discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base. But I think we need a clear vision before we can set out a road map of how to get there.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Michael André Pearce < michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > 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 > >
