+1 robbies suggestion i like it.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell
<[email protected]> Date: 05/03/2019 15:59 (GMT+00:00) To:
[email protected] Subject: Re: Website The project is just ActiveMQ, so
if going back to the earlierstatement I'd suggesting tweaking it, e.g something
likes/projects/components/:"A SUITE OF OPEN SOURCE COMPONENTS FOR HIGH
PERFORMANCE MESSAGING”I dont really have a preference between the two
statements, but Iwould perhaps drop "broker" from the end of Justins, giving
just:"Flexible & Powerful Open Source Multi-Protocol Messaging"RobbieOn 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
