FWIW as a user of ActiveMQ for the last 11 years I can say that using the word 'classic' as a product name qualifier is a very common marketing tool in English speaking countries and makes sense to me. It's use will nearly always conjure up the image in users' minds of a product whose heritage is shared with the latest version of said product with whom its name overlaps.
To use a vehicular example (as that is my industry) there is the "RAM 1500 Classic" pickup truck (https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-1500classic.html) and latest "RAM 1500" (https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-1500.html). The use of the word 'classic' in such a context is used to convey the sentiment that the product is 'tried and tested', 'reliable', 'rugged', 'stable' with a simplified feature set. It reflects that the manufacturer still values and honors that segment of the market whose needs it serves by supporting their user's needs for its growth whilst simultaneously recognizing that new and changing demands of the market can be satisfied by bifurcating the namespace in a manner that does not mean out with the old. Users and manufacturers get this. I thought I would chime-in incase there are members that are based outside the US/UK that are not aware of the common usage of the word 'classic' for product naming/marketing purposes. I think that the broker product namespace should be split into 'ActiveMQ Classic' and 'ActiveMQ' - and drop the Artemis name completely. Both products can continue on with their own unique versioning scheme. Regardless, of whether the use of the name 'Artemis' continues on or not I think it would be ill advised to remove the 'ActiveMQ' stem name. Where user confusion enters the picture is when they cannot tell if two similar products from the same manufacturer are in direct competition with each other or if they share a common heritage and are simply alternate offerings. Just my two cents. Thanks, Paul On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:40 AM Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > please be clear about the logic around any proposed renaming. > > also, don't loose track of the fact that both brokers ship examples > that are use case driven. There is huge overlap across those examples > and that is by design. > > If there are points of difference, the examples are the place to > demonstrate and document such that users community can easily evaluate > for them selves. > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 04:59, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > Hi Art, > > > > Your point about artifacts makes lot of sense. > > > > To limit the impacts, my first thought was to keep the artifacts > coordinates as they are today, and focus "naming" for website mainly. > > But you are right, the artifacts can be confusing for users. > > So, if we decide to rename, artifacts worth a rename as well. > > > > About website, I like your idea, especially for new users, providing > "factual" history content. > > For "existing" users, I still think we have different communities and > also different users depending of the use case. > > > > When Bruce said "we can’t compare activemq/artemis with Kafka", if I > would agree on paper, in practice, it’s not the case: activemq, Artemis, > Kafka, pulsa, tubemq/inlong, etc: all these projects are related to > messaging. So, even if they are very different by design, users compare > these projects according for their use cases. It’s also something that > would be useful on website: user story/use case, to clearly provide > examples. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > Le 22 mars 2021 à 19:50, Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> a écrit : > > > > > > 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/> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
