Robbie, I agree with you on removing "broker" from the current tag line so it's just, "Flexible & Powerful Open Source Multi-Protocol Messaging". I had actually already made this change on my local version. :)
I'll go ahead and make that change in the staging area given Mike's +1 as well. Justin On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:59 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
