Hi,

>From point of view as user I also think that it can be a good thing to
see Artemis as a TLP, it can help promoting separatly because it's a
fully different solution with it's own source code base.

We can see that on the others Apache project, the sub-project are
generally based on the main project but here this is not the case.

So big +1 to split.

Just my 2 cts ;)

regards,

François
fpa...@apache.org

Le 19/03/2021 à 16:42, Atri Sharma a écrit :
> 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/>
>>>

Reply via email to