Hey Justin,
Thanks for the additional context. As a newcomer, it seems to me like both
ActiveMQ "Classic" and Artemis are alive and well. 6 years and 2 major versions
in to development, is the goal and focus for Artemis still on feature parity
and becoming ActiveMQ 6?
Thanks,
Lucas
On 2021-03-18, 8:38 PM, "Justin Bertram" <jbert...@apache.org> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the
content is safe.
Lucas,
I'm not sure you've been around the ActiveMQ community for very long or
maybe you have been and forgot some of the history. In any case, I'll
summarize briefly.
Over a decade ago Hiram Chirino, one of the original ActiveMQ developers
and chair of the ActiveMQ PMC at the time, created a new broker under the
ActiveMQ banner named Apollo. It was designed on a non-blocking
architecture for much better performance than the existing ActiveMQ
architecture [1]. After ActiveMQ Apollo 1.0 was released the stated goal of
this project was for it to eventually be integrated with the mainline
ActiveMQ code-base and serve as its replacement [2]. This fact was
advertised on the ActiveMQ website although there are no longer any
references to that since the website was redesigned & updated a year or so
ago. For whatever reason Apollo never acquired the critical mass necessary
to replace mainline ActiveMQ.
Then about 6 years ago the HornetQ code-base was donated to the ActiveMQ
community and that donation was accepted with the goal of creating the next
generation ActiveMQ broker that would eventually become version 6. Since
that time work has steadily progressed on the Artemis code-base to bring
sufficient feature parity with mainline ActiveMQ to allow users to
transition. Again, this has been communicated via the website and other
support channels for the last several years.
For what it's worth, I hope that clarifies the current state of affairs.
Justin
[1]
https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/
[2] https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 PM Tetreault, Lucas
<tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems to me like the core problem here is that there are two distinct
> projects operating under one brand and it creates confusion. I agree with
> JB that the "ActiveMQ Classic" and "ActiveMQ 5" branding are not ideal.
> However, I think that renaming it to ActiveMQ Leto will further dilute the
> ActiveMQ brand and create more confusion for users. Why not just
"ActiveMQ"
> and "Artemis"?
>
> Thanks,
> Lucas
>
> On 2021-03-18, 6:54 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> I would rather to ActiveMQ Leto 5.17.0 (and then Leto 6.0 at some
> point).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 18 mars 2021 à 14:51, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> a
> écrit :
> >
> > I'm not clear on the versioning you're proposing. Are you saying
> that the
> > first release of this subproject would be ActiveMQ Leto 1.0?
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
> j...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Robbie,
> >>
> >> My point is about "classic". I understand the meaning but I think
> it’s not
> >> a good "tagging".
> >>
> >> I don’t want to focus on ActiveMQ 5.x, because it prevents us to
use
> >> another versioning.
> >> Why not ActiveMQ 6.0 that would be a new major ActiveMQ release.
> >>
> >> To summarize:
> >> 1. ActiveMQ 5.x is too restrictive for versioning
> >> 2. Classic is not a good "naming/tagging".
> >>
> >> That’s why I’m proposing a new identified name. It means we would
> have:
> >>
> >> - Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
> >> - Apache ActiveMQ Leto
> >>
> >> IMHO, it’s two subprojects under the same "umbrella" (like we have
> Camel
> >> K, Camel Spring Boot, Camel Karaf, or Karaf runtime, Karaf
> Decanter, Karaf
> >> Cave, etc).
> >> Each subproject deserves a clear naming.
> >>
> >> About the website, you got my point: I would like to get all wiki
> based
> >> resources, update and clean it to push on a dedicated sub context
> of the
> >> website:
> >>
> >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <
> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis>
> >> http://activemq.apache.org/leto <http://activemq.apache.org/leto>
> >>
> >> Each with its own announcement, download, documentation resources.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 12:19, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
> a
> >> écrit :
> >>>
> >>> The 'classic' terminology on the homepage is used more as a
> >>> description rather than a name to me, speaking to its quality and
> >>> vintage and in some small straightforward way. ActiveMQ 5 is still
> the
> >>> way the broker is referenced on the site as a whole so far as I
> see,
> >>> rather than ActiveMQ Classic. Essentially everywhere besides the
> >>> subdir name being 'classic' in the URL for grouping some of the
> newest
> >>> component pages. I dont think 'Leto' is particularly more useful
> than
> >>> 'classic' as a description, and especially not an improvement for
> the
> >>> subdir in the URL at this point. It would be quite the opposite
> for me
> >>> personally, I think it would be a bad idea.
> >>>
> >>> Changing the subdir on the site from 'classic' to something else
> >>> simplistic and direct such as 5 or 5x or 5.x? Sure, I can see
that.
> >>> Dropping the "Classic" description suffix from the central box on
> the
> >>> homepage, leaving only the ActiveMQ 5 titling? By all means. Leto?
> I
> >>> dont really see that being an improvement at this point at all.
> >>>
> >>> On your other proposal of cleaning up mess, presumably that means
> the
> >>> mass of old 5.x wiki-derived pages on the site in the root (done
to
> >>> preserve URLs during the site changeover I believe, over
> >>> individual-page redirects) that are rarely ever touched, and
moving
> >>> such content into the subdir? Sounds great.
> >>>
> >>> Robbie
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:30, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
> j...@nanthrax.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to bring on the table the naming of Apache ActiveMQ.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think "Classic" is not a good name, and it doesn’t mean
> anything. I
> >> think it would make more sense to have a generic name.
> >>>>
> >>>> As we have Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, I would like to propose
Apache
> >> ActiveMQ Leto.
> >>>>
> >>>> From a cultural standpoint ;), Artemis is the Greek goddess of
the
> >> hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. Artemis
> is the
> >> daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo.
> >>>> As "ActiveMQ Classic" is "older" than Artemis, I propose to
> rename as
> >> Apache ActiveMQ Leto.
> >>>>
> >>>> This name change won’t impact the code repository, it’s more for
> the
> >> website.
> >>>>
> >>>> Related to that proposal, I would like to propose also to create
a
> >> dedicated space for Leto: http://activemq.apache.org/leto <
> >> http://activemq.apache.org/leto> with a complete cleanup of the
> mess we
> >> have today (documentation, download page, announcements, etc).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> JB
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
