I was navigating through the staged website now.. it feels very accurate and factual to me.. (sticking to the facts I think it's the word I'm looking for here).
it's avoiding making any "mission statements" and it's just presenting the projects.. IMO: We should go with the way it is now.. nice job!!! We can always improve it later. On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > > I really like Martyn’s statement. TBH. > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM michael.andre.pearce > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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.>> > > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
