Same, when I have to mention both in the same discussion, I tend to add "classic" for ActiveMQ to make sure there is no confusion with Artemis. But that's basically it. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:43 AM Arthur Naseef <artnas...@apache.org> wrote: > As a general practice, I try to avoid unqualified + qualified names > together - it gets confusing. However, in this case, we have a > long-established history. > > I believe that a formal rename of ActiveMQ would be fairly disruptive for a > small amount of value. > > For the record - I have heard, and started using, the term "ActiveMQ > Classic" when talking about ActiveMQ + Artemis in the same discussion. > > Art > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 1:52 PM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 2023, at 7:15 AM, Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > +1 to what Christopher said... I have rarely heard AMQ 5.x being > > referred to as classic. Most of our users just say "ActiveMQ" or > "Artemis". > > > > Same. I've never heard anyone contact us and say "Classic". Always just > > "ActiveMQ" and "Artemis" > > > > > > -David > > > > > On 2023/09/12 13:44:15 Christopher Shannon wrote: > > >> I don't really see a need for "Classic" and I think it should be > > dropped. > > >> No one uses it and just refers to it as "ActiveMQ 5.x". > > >> > > >> ActiveMQ Artemis has had its own versioning and brand since the > > beginning > > >> going back many years so I don't think getting rid of "Classic" is an > > issue > > >> or would lead to any confusion since as I said, no one uses it > anyways. > > >> > > >> So I think it makes sense to just go with what JB said for now: > > >> > > >> - ActiveMQ 5.18.x > > >> - ActiveMQ 6.x.x > > >> - ActiveMQ 7.x.x > > >> - ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x > > >> - ActiveMQ Artemis 3.x > > >> > > >> That would be quite clear as to what each version is. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:27 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> That makes lot of sense to me ! We will have: > > >>> > > >>> - ActiveMQ 5.18.x > > >>> - ActiveMQ 6.x.x > > >>> - ActiveMQ 7.x.x > > >>> - ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x > > >>> - ActiveMQ Artemis 3.x > > >>> > > >>> So, I propose to have two "spaces" on website: > > >>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq > > >>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis > > >>> > > >>> The index.html will list the two spaces and users will go to one or > > >>> another. > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts ? > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> JB > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 3:08 PM Robbie Gemmell < > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> ActiveMQ 5.x + 6.x, ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x yes...i.e no change. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 13:34, Francois Papon > > >>>> <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So next will be ActiveMQ 5.x, ActiveMQ 6.x and Artemis? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 12/09/2023 14:14, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > >>>>>> That is how I refer to them, or more fully as ActiveMQ 5.x like > > >>> below, > > >>>>>> and ActiveMQ Artemis. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Same as last time this was discussed, I dont consider "Classic" > part > > >>>>>> of the actual name, just a reflective description label, quoted > for > > a > > >>>>>> reason. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 12:48, fpapon <fpa...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Why not simply ActiveMQ and Artemis? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> This is how people used to name the 2 projects, I never eared > > >>> someone > > >>>>>>> say "ActiveMQ Classic". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> regards, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> François > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 12/09/2023 13:07, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Same thoughts as last time you proposed it really. Adding Leto > > >>> would > > >>>>>>>> not be an improvement for me, more actually the reverse. I think > > >>> it's > > >>>>>>>> fine as it is, ActiveMQ 5.x / 6.x, adding Leto would be more > > >>>>>>>> confusing. Describing something as 'classic' is a pretty normal > / > > >>>>>>>> well-known thing, I think a user even noted that on the original > > >>>>>>>> thread. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 10:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > >>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Is it a good time to talk about ActiveMQ "Something" instead of > > >>>>>>>>> "Classic" ? (I hate this "classic" naming (it sounds weird to > me) > > >>> and > > >>>>>>>>> most of people uses simply Artemis and ActiveMQ as name) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I proposed ActiveMQ Artemis and ActiveMQ Leto (Leto is the > mother > > >>> of > > >>>>>>>>> Artemis in Greek mythology) to have a clear distinction between > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>>> two subprojects. Thoughts ? :) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If it's too "sensible", please ignore :) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards > > >>>>>>>>> JB > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:11 AM Gary Tully <gtu...@apache.org > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> makes sense, but please keep a clear distinction - activemq > > >>> classic 6.0.0 > > >>>>>>>>>> activemq X may still evolve to combine the best of both. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 22:15, Christopher Shannon < > > >>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> First, I realize that this thread is likely to cause a fight > > >>> based on past > > >>>>>>>>>>> history and probably not go anywhere, but with the work being > > >>> done > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Jakarta for AMQ 5.x I think it's time to at least bring > up > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ 6.0 discussion. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> With all the breaking changes currently targeted for version > > >>> 5.19.x, such > > >>>>>>>>>>> as the Jakarta switch from javax, requiring JDK 17, major > > >>> Spring and Jetty > > >>>>>>>>>>> upgrades and now potentially major OSGi changes, it makes > zero > > >>> sense to me > > >>>>>>>>>>> to have this next AMQ version as version 5.19.0 as it's > > >>> completely > > >>>>>>>>>>> incompatible with the previous version 5.18.x. Users are > likely > > >>> going to be > > >>>>>>>>>>> in for a rude awakening when trying to upgrade and will be > > >>> quite confused > > >>>>>>>>>>> as to why so much is different. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Jakarta changes should really be a major version upgrade > so > > >>> that it's > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more clear to users that it's very different from the > > >>> previous > > >>>>>>>>>>> version. Another major benefit of going with version 6.0 is > > >>> that it frees > > >>>>>>>>>>> up the previous javax releases to continue on with 5.19 or > 5.20 > > >>> because we > > >>>>>>>>>>> will likely need to support the older javax releases for > quite > > >>> a while. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Also, from my point of view it seems pretty clear that the > > >>> original goal > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Artemis to become AMQ 6.0.0 is never going to happen. > > >>> Artemis has had > > >>>>>>>>>>> its own branding and versioning for several years now and > will > > >>> likely > > >>>>>>>>>>> continue that way and not change so I don't really see that > as > > >>> a reason to > > >>>>>>>>>>> not bump AMQ 5.x to 6.x with all the major breaking changes. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, I figure there won't be much agreement here but > > >>> thought I should > > >>>>>>>>>>> at least throw it out there before we go and release 5.19.x > > >>> with such major > > >>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> François > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
