Gary stated this well. I agree completely with all of his sentiments here.

I don't see the point to introducing yet another name as this will muddy
these waters even further, not clarify them. Artemis was meant to be a code
name until it matched ActiveMQ enough to be a drop-in replacement. I don't
believe that this goal has been achieved yet, has it? Is this still an
active goal?

Classic is an appropriate and deliberate name that was being discussed as
far back as just prior to the HornetQ donation. If we start officially
referring to it as ActiveMQ Classic, then we need to explain the intent
behind this name via the website.

Agreed, the Classic stream needs a major version bump before those
incompatible changes are introduced. Do this and move forward with those
incompatible changes.

Bruce

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:29 AM Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi JB,
> I think "classic" is a good name precisely because of its meaning, it
> reflects its value and is a good way to differentiate on the website.
>
> But I don't think the classic stream should be limited in versioning.
> If for good reason (a new incompatible openwire version/storage
> incompatible change/large config update) it needs a major version
> increment, then go for it.
>
> Artemis was always intended as a code name, a generic title, a
> temporary moniker, till it could take on the activemq mantle, but it
> does not have to be 6, it can be 10 or 20, or it can be ActiveMQ
> Artemis.
>
> I don't see any point in introducing another "brand" name, the
> versioning will be sufficient if we want to consolidate on the
> activemq name in the future, and the Artemis sub brand will be
> sufficient if we don't.
>
> to speak to Lucas, the plan for Artemis is to be be a better ActiveMQ
>
> kind regards,
> gary.
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 04:49, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Like any Apache (and OpenSource) project, ActiveMQ "umbrella" project is
> living and roadmap evolves.
> >
> > Justin is right with the project history, but I think the initial target
> to "replace" ActiveMQ with Artemis evolves, due to the users.
> >
> > Personally, I’m saying still lot of ActiveMQ users, not planning to
> change to Artemis, and even brand new installation starts with ActiveMQ
> (not Artemis).
> > Furthermore, in term of features, there are some gaps between ActiveMQ
> and Artemis IMHO.
> >
> > I think the mistake was to create a separated repo for Artemis: if
> Artemis was ActiveMQ "master" branch at the time of the donation, then, the
> update would be straight forward.
> >
> > So, clearly, IMHO, we have two completed separated projects between
> ActiveMQ and Artemis, because the communities (both users and contributors)
> are not the same.
> >
> > A possible path to that Artemis become Apache TLP (and so ActiveMQ
> Artemis name), and ActiveMQ "classic" stays what he’s: Apache ActiveMQ.
> >
> > If the PMC don’t want to "move" as a TLP, then we should at least give
> space for the two subprojects in the ActiveMQ umbrella and clearly identify
> who is what.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > > Le 19 mars 2021 à 05:13, Tetreault, Lucas <tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID>
> a écrit :
> > >
> > > 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>


-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>

Reply via email to