As an observer, I am compelled to ask -- have we considered promoting Artemis to its own TLP?
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, 21:07 Christopher Shannon, < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > JB, > > Right, I am a user of both products also. I am still a heavy 5.x/Classic > user but I also am still trying to get my project/team onto Artemis as well > but migration is always slow. I'm also working quite heavily with Kafka now > as well which has taken up a lot of my time and prevented me from having as > much interaction with AMQ recently. Having a separate TLP does not stop > anyone from contributing and using both projects but it does make things a > lot easier I think in terms of naming, versioning, etc. I think it also > just adds a lot more clarity for the users. Also, even as its own TLP, > there is no reason why Artemis can't still have a goal to be feature > compliant with ActiveMQ 5.x. > > A pretty good example about how things are confusing right now is Artemis > has been advertised as the next generation but there has been a lot of > discussion recently about 5.x release cycles, upgrading the datastore, JMS > 2.0 upgrades, etc. Basically it looks like it is still being actively > development (which it is) so a user might be pretty confused about which > broker to pick and what is going on long term. > > Anyways, I can only speak for myself so maybe most people still think the > two projects should stay together under 1 umbrella. If I am in the minority > and most people want to keep everything together that is fine. > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > I’m sharing the same feeling and analyze. > > > > Even if I plan to work more on Artemis (first PR will happen soon ;)), > the > > current situation is what you describe: we have two communities. > > > > It’s not a bad thing IMHO, it happens in all projects, with time and > > resulting of some decisions taken. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > Le 19 mars 2021 à 16:02, Christopher Shannon < > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > The real issue here is quite obvious and demonstrated over the last > > several > > > years and that is the goal isn't really agreed upon by everyone. Some > > > people think the goal should be to make Artemis the next generation and > > > others don't agree with that. > > > > > > Personally, while I still think having one broker to rally upon and > make > > > the best broker possible (Artemis) should be the goal, the realist in > me > > > does not believe this will ever happen without significant push back > from > > > the members of the community that do not want this to happen. > > > > > > Over the past couple of years my opinion has swayed now to simply > making > > > Artemis its own TLP. Even after 6 years we have 2 separate communities > > > entirely. We basically have 2 independent projects with almost no > overlap > > > between developers and users so why not just make Artemis its own TLP? > I > > > really see no benefit of operating under the same umbrella anymore (I > > guess > > > maybe if you want to keep the branding) > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net > > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I understand the point. My main concern was in term of versioning (I > > don’t > > >> want to "block" ActiveMQ to do a 6, 7, 8 or whatever release). > > >> > > >> Sorry, but classic is something I don’t fully understand (maybe my > > French > > >> culture ;)). I don’t see what’s "classic" (or maybe in term of > > "previous" > > >> or "older") is. Maybe "vintage" (like classical music compare to house > > >> music) ;) ? > > >> > > >> And, anyway, nobody is using "classic": for the users I know, they use > > >> ActiveMQ and Artemis (not ActiveMQ Classic or ActiveMQ Artemis). > > >> > > >> So, if you agree to have: > > >> > > >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < > http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> > > <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis > >> > > >> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq < > > http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> < > http://activemq.apache.org/activemq > > <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq>> > > >> > > >> I think it’s even better than introducing a new name, I agree. > > >> > > >> Then, I’m changing the proposal/question: agree to use activemq and > > >> Artemis on website ? > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> JB > > >> > > >>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 15:48, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com > <mailto: > > bruce.sny...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > >>> > > >>> 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 > > <mailto: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 > > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > > <mailto: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/ > > < > > > https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ > > > > > >>>>>> [2] > > >>>> > https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/ > > <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 <mailto: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 > > <mailto: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 > > <mailto: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 <mailto: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/> > > > > >
