The project is just ActiveMQ, so if going back to the earlier statement I'd suggesting tweaking it, e.g something like s/projects/components/:
"A SUITE OF OPEN SOURCE COMPONENTS FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE MESSAGING” I dont really have a preference between the two statements, but I would perhaps drop "broker" from the end of Justins, giving just: "Flexible & Powerful Open Source Multi-Protocol Messaging" Robbie On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 13:43, 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
