+1 thanks Bruce. Regards JB
> Le 20 mars 2021 à 19:28, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I agree, we should sort out not only the naming and versioning so that it's > no longer confusing for users. We should also discuss and work toward > consensus of the future vision. > > I propose we work toward this future vision by assembling a high level > strategy via discussions here that begins by defining buckets of must, > should and wishlist items that tends to feel like a kitchen sink full of > topics. Over time, this kitchen sink approach becomes whittled down into > more realistic buckets of achievements that become prioritized. We should > use the wiki to assemble a working document that holds the current state of > thinking that everyone can edit. The idea is to work through this as a > group, in a fair, respectful and open manner on this mailing list so that > everyone has the opportunity to participate. This certainly isn't the > fastest way to work, but it's the only way to work that is fair to everyone > involved. > > This approach is known as The Apache Way: > http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html > > To kick off this process, I have created a wiki page to facilitate > collaboration moving forward: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/Future+Vision+for+the+Apache+ActiveMQ+Project > > Bruce > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 9:16 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> I agree that we have kind of consensus about stay under ActiveMQ umbrella. >> >> As Artemis and Classic are in two different repos, and we have some gaps, >> I think it could be "confusing" for our users. >> >> That was exactly my point when I started the thread: I see users lot in >> naming, versioning. >> I think that maybe the mistake was to keep ActiveMQ "branding" for 5.x, >> and have Artemis at same time. >> >> Anyway, it’s mostly a communication and website point. >> >> I think (even if I don’t like "Classic" name ;)) we can keep Artemis and >> Classic, but clearly separate resources (it’s already the case, but let’s >> do this even more obvious) on website, and inform users that both >> "subprojects" are active and moving forward. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 20 mars 2021 à 16:10, Christopher Shannon < >> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> After reading everyone's feedback I am seeing a lot of good reasons to >> stay >>> under one umbrella. The main thing is probably just clarifying to user's >>> that both brokers are alive and being supported at this point to reduce >>> confusion and the plans for each broker. >>> >>> How about versioning going forward (since that was part of this initial >>> thread)? The initial intent was Artemis was a code name and eventually >>> would be retired and become ActiveMQ 6.0 when deemed ready. Is this still >>> the goal? Or are we just going to keep going forward with Artemis as the >>> name under its own versioning indefinitely and that would allow ActiveMQ >>> 5.x to become 6 if desired? I think either way is fine as long as it is >>> defined as the plan. The Artemis name has been around a while now and I'm >>> fine with just keeping that name long term. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 1:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> It seems we lost the initial intend of this thread. >>>> >>>> The two initial questions on this thread were: >>>> >>>> 1. Can we give a more clear "tag name" than "classic", and also being >> able >>>> to use different versioning than just 5. >>>> 2. Refactoring just the activemq "classic" part of the website (working >> on >>>> cleaning the wiki resources, etc). >>>> >>>> We don’t have a consensus about other actions and we have different >>>> standpoints about the current situation and communities "segmentation". >>>> >>>> That’s OK for me: it’s the base of OpenSource and Apache to discuss and >>>> have a consensus. >>>> >>>> So, to summarize: >>>> >>>> 1. We continue to have "classic" and "Artemis" under the ActiveMQ >>>> "umbrella" >>>> 2. We will move forward on cleaning and updates of the ActiveMQ >> "classic" >>>> part on the website (it’s a must have IMHO) >>>> 3. We will move forward on "Classic" roadmap and new features >>>> 4. We will move forward on "Artemis" roadmap and new features >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>>> Le 20 mars 2021 à 01:53, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >>>>> >>>>> I remember the startup script being added. It was kinda copyied that >> from >>>>> Tomcat with the use of the INSTANCE and HOME concepts. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:04 PM Clebert Suconic < >>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> The startup script is different, >>>>>> >>>>>> The startup script actually is copied from Apollo, which was one of >>>>>> the best features from Apollo. The initial commit was done by Hiram >>>>>> where he brought the $APOLLO_INSTANCE and $APOLLO_HOME concepts into >>>>>> artemis, the create broker... everything here came from Apollo... and >>>>>> it was really nice addition BTW. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> the configuration is different >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think the config is a big deal... I would actually move out of >>>>>> XML in a near future. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> even the features are different. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have always taken the ActiveMQ feature set and worked around it.. >>>>>> this is not being updated for a while, so the feature parity is even >>>>>> higher now: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This list actually came a few years ago when we had that discussion: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://activemq.apache.org/activemq-artemis-roadmap >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Besides I don't think myself as an outsider of the ActiveMQ Community. >>>>>> For instance, 2 ActiveMQ committers who have been more committers on >>>>>> Artemis codebase more than anything dedicated a lot of their time into >>>>>> the website update. >>>>>> >>>>>> That was Martyn Talylor (who is actually the author of the new Logo), >>>>>> and Mike Pearce... >>>>>> >>>>>> I know both of them used a lot of non billable hours away from their >>>>>> family time to update the website while doing volunteer work hours on >>>>>> open source. Denying that now and saying Artemis committers are a >>>>>> separate project is not even fair to these contributions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:26 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Bruce, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Taking my user cap, I don’t see Artemis of ActiveMQ more than Kafka >> or >>>>>> something else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The startup script is different, the configuration is different, even >>>>>> the features are different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, I agree to present Artemis as an alternative to ActiveMQ, but I >>>>>> don’t see why "forcing" user to update. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone can maintain and use any version of project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 21:05, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> a >>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see the need or the point of taking Artemis toward becoming >> a >>>>>> TLP. >>>>>>>> This would further segregate everything and probably wouldn't make >>>>>> sense to >>>>>>>> the board. We need to fulfill the plans we made initially when >> HornetQ >>>>>> was >>>>>>>> donated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The main thing preventing any movement toward Artemis as the next >> gen >>>>>>>> broker is because we have not been selling/messaging it this way to >>>> the >>>>>>>> user community. In the six years since HornetQ was donated, we have >>>> not >>>>>>>> published any plans for the community (i.e., on the website) >>>>>> describing the >>>>>>>> intended plan. I think this is due to the fact that most folks were >>>>>> focused >>>>>>>> on Artemis development and working on moving toward feature parity >>>> with >>>>>>>> ActiveMQ Classic. We need to change this. So, let's develop a plan >> and >>>>>>>> publish it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:18 PM Christopher Shannon < >>>>>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback Mike, these are all fair points. There is >>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>> a lot to consider before any vote is started as splitting stuff up >>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>> a big deal. In terms of PMC I would think anyone on the current PMC >>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> be able to be on either or both if they want. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For what it is worth this is what happened last time a formal vote >>>> was >>>>>>>>> started without any real discussion ahead of time: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Graduate-Artemis-as-TLP-tp4733584.html >>>>>>>>> As you can see it did not go well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:51 PM Michael André Pearce >>>>>>>>> <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So i personally don’t see the need to change anything, apart from >>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>>> some project clarity from the PMC. Im not really seeing the value >>>>>> tbh. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As in previously it has been defined that ActiveMQ Artemis would >>>>>> become >>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ 6 eventually. If that’s not the case and simply we say >> that >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> two projects live on and evolve and no longer Artemis is planned >> as >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> successor that’s fine, we just need to declare that, a little more >>>>>>>>> formally >>>>>>>>>> along with some kind of guidance which broker is best to choose >> for >>>>>> whom. >>>>>>>>>> This seems like a much lower cost approach, to going nuclear with >>>>>> project >>>>>>>>>> separations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding if there was a split to a new separate TLPs, a few bits >> i >>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> want to know before i would vote for this as PMC, and really this >> is >>>>>> why >>>>>>>>> i >>>>>>>>>> don’t think its the best idea to split everything, because >> there’s a >>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> sort to split it all up, for what real value? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyhow some queries very quickly come to mind for me is: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would all PMC and Committers get rights to all new TLP’s >>>>>> automatically? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Both brokers and the clients we create rely on OpenWire protocol >> and >>>>>> aim >>>>>>>>>> to support all its features, if OpenWire protocol evolves (which >> it >>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> need to do) atm this lives on in the classic sub project (aka >>>>>> ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>> 5.x) >>>>>>>>>> so this is fine whilst everything is under the same umbrella, as >> we >>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> therefor the same PMC to handle that in both projects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do we want to therefor also split out OpenWire as its own project, >>>>>> so it >>>>>>>>>> has a shared governance for both future projects? Similar to that >>>>>> AMQP >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> its own separate governance that both brokers just adhere to? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Further to that then and if so where do OpenWire clients all (JMS >>>>>>>>>> OpenWire, NMS OpenWire, CMS OpenWire sit? In the OpenWire project? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Likewise where does bits like PooledConnectionFactory that can be >>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>>> and but sits in ActiveMQ code base atm then move to? I assume it >>>>>> might >>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>> with the JMS OpenWire client. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ok great but then where does the CMS/NMS apis governance sit (not >>>>>>>>>> implementation)? Do we sit that still in ActiveMQ? Do we move it >> to >>>>>> its >>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>> TLP? Do we move it to OpenWire? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lastly, what about naming? I don’t like the idea of just Apache >>>>>> Artemis, >>>>>>>>>> nor ArtemisMQ , for me it was named Artemis simply because of the >>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>> dumped Apollo project, maybe a better named should be found? And >>>> then >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> about existing users, the code base is littered with >>>>>>>>>> org.apache.activemq.artemis.* if TLP move occurred, there’d need >> to >>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> package migration that would need to be done in a non breaking >>>>>> fashion >>>>>>>>>> where people have developed on and around the current code base >> apis >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> packaged. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As such id like to see much more a proposed plan for everything >>>>>> before >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>> vote. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Mar 2021, at 16:27, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, let’s wait more PMC/dev feedback. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:25, Christopher Shannon < >>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see more PMC members chime in to get thoughts and >>>>>> continue >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion before proposing a vote. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:10 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If no objection, I would start a vote to propose Artemis as >> TLP. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:00, Jonathan Gallimore < >>>>>>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I personally feel that renaming Classic to Leto has the >>>>>> potential to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> further confuse people. I'd be +1 on Artemis becoming its own >>>>>> TLP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:37 PM 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/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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/> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Clebert Suconic >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > -- > 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/>
