I think having an explicit difference is better from a user point of view; so "classic" and "artemis" must be there somehow.
That being said, at first glance it does not make much difference to me if we use apache/activemq-classic with apache/activemq-artemis instead of apache/activemq/classic with apache/activemq/artemis or the way around. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 4:46 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > It has been discussed but not the name specifically. > > As we use apache/activemq-artemis, I thought "logical" to use > apache/activemq (but maybe activemq-classic makes more sense). > > I'm not sure we will be able to use apache/activemq/classic and > apache/activemq/artemis, but we can definitely use > apache/activemq-classic as apache/activemq-artemis. > > I can rename right now. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 3:57 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > This weekend JB announced [1] the availability of official Docker images > > for ActiveMQ "Classic" in the "apache/activemq" namespace [2]. > > > > Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall (and can't find) any discussion > of > > or notification about this. Users will certainly expect images for both > > "Classic" and Artemis so my concern is regarding the namespace. If both > > "Classic" and Artemis share the apache/activemq namespace directly then > > there may eventually be version number conflicts and there certainly will > > be confusion about which version is which. > > > > Before these images are widely adopted I think the namespace should be > > clarified just as it is on the website so that ActiveMQ "Classic" uses > > "apache/activemq/classic" and ActiveMQ Artemis uses > > "apache/activemq/artemis". > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Justin > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/4cqbm0gsbj184vrp13yorcd2rrbdcsmx > > [2] https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/activemq/tags >
