Thats kind of why i really liked the original tag line Martyn had: "A SUITE OF OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE MESSAGING”
Its bang on what the ActiveMQ community is about, for me. > On 4 Mar 2019, at 20:31, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think "provider" is a good word at this point as it connotes some > kind of service (e.g. a "cloud provider") and may be confusing. I think > "server" and "broker" would work fine as I don't think either of these > exclude the inclusion of a client (e.g. "Java Application Server" > implementations have always shipped various clients for remote EJB, JNDI, > etc.). In my opinion, the term "platform" connotes a place where you run > your application code, which ActiveMQ is not. There are certainly places > for user code to run (e.g. interceptors, plugins), but that code is to > serve the broader purpose of the server/broker as an integration point. > Then again, maybe my opinion is in the minority. I'm willing to be > convinced. Perhaps there are other good options we aren't considering. > > I don't want to artificially limit where the project can go in the future, > but I also want to call it what it is and it hasn't really departed from > its historical legacy.
