JB - I appreciate that you are ready to take on effort here. Some parts of renaming are open questions in my mind. For example, do we rename the Maven Artifacts? If so, how can we help users to avoid confusion when searching for artifacts, and when upgrading from existing ones.
I know that's not a unique problem to AMQ; for example, I still have to pause and think, "is it group-id commons-io, or org.apache.commons"? One idea of a small change to the website landing page that could help (as an additional consideration, not a replacement for renaming) - have a link with a title such as, "WHICH ACTIVEMQ BROKER?" or "ACTIVEMQ or ARTEMIS?" - and have that link open a page with a brief clarification, and perhaps a little history. Cheers! Art On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:51 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Art, > > I share your point and it’s the intention of the thread: some users (all > ?) are lost between ActiveMQ and Artemis. > > Some don’t understand that Artemis is a ActiveMQ project, some others are > lot between ActiveMQ and Artemis. > I think most of the confusion is that "Classic" or version is not super > clean for users (for us, it’s a not a problem because we are involved in > the project, but think about "external" users). > > If we go with naming change for "Classic" (or whatever name), I’m really > to tackle the effort (it can be done in two steps, website/documentation > first and code base after). > I’m ready to tackle this (even it’s a big effort ;)). > > Regards > JB > > > Le 20 mars 2021 à 19:19, Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> a écrit : > > > > When it comes to naming, and overloaded names, having two things with the > > same base name, then one with a distinguisher and one without, creates an > > imbalance that always leads to confusion. In other words, having > > "ActiveMQ" and "ActiveMQ Artemis" is confusing. If it had been (too late > > now) "ActiveMQ" and "Artemis", then there would be no confusion on the > > naming (just then the confusion for some of whether Artemis was related > to > > ActiveMQ in any way). > > > > BTW, for those who are too new to remember, we started out using version > > numbers to distinguish, which quickly got even more confusing when > Artemis > > rolled around because Apollo was already informally branded "AMQ 6". > There > > is also, as many know, now a company calling Artemis "AMQ 7". This is > the > > point in the thought process where I usually just walk away. > > > > The best way, in my experience, to eliminate that confusion is to create > a > > new distinguishing name and use it. Using "Classic" here achieves that > > goal, but it also has a feeling of calling it "the old thing". > > > > On the other hand, we are very deep in here (i.e. ActiveMQ has a LOT of > > code and assets behind it), so renaming could lead to a lot of changes - > > for example, renaming the artifacts could be desirable. > > > > Changing the designation on the website landing page seems like a good > idea > > to me - it's a "shallow" operation (shallow meaning only 1 layer of thing > > to change). Hence my recommendation to change it to somehitng like > > "ActiveMQ (the Classic broker)" from "ActiveMQ Classic" since the former > > seems, in my mind, to clarify that Classic is not part of the name. > > > > If we really want to solve the naming imbalance, I'll support it, but > then > > I think we need a good name, and we'll need to be mindful of just how > deep > > we take the name. And good name = not something like "Classic" - a name > > worthy of a project, something akin to "Artemis" and "Apollo". (More god > > names?) > > > > Art > > > > P.S. It would be awesome to remove the 5.x major-number limitation. > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 8:17 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/> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > >
