I am just against making it seem we are exclusively broker only. Present it
maybe. But past it wasnt and future i hope it isnt.Happy for an alternative.
But atm i much prefer keeping it as Martyn had it.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Justin Bertram <[email protected]>
Date: 04/03/2019 20:53 (GMT+00:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re:
Website But where is the "suite" of projects? The only things under
activedevelopment/maintenance are the brokers.JustinOn Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 2:46
PM Michael André Pearce<[email protected]> wrote:> 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.>>
