And I guess to return to the original subject -- I'd be fine release
something like this as a 1.n.m+1 release -- it has plenty to be "an
advance". But I think there's enough incompatibility with 1.1.x that
I don't think it would make a good 1.1.2. I wish we already had a
solid 1.2 release down so we could say this is a great looking 1.2.1
release, you know? I'm not so sure it's exciting as a 1.2 release on
its own.
But I'd be happy to call it a pre-alpha or whatever.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 9/7/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/7/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ActiveMQ 4.1 is a massive upgrade (a really good thing) from the
> previous offering in G 1.x
It is a good upgrade, but looking over that list, it's practically the
only big advance for a typical user, and that's assuming they care
that much about JMS. I wish we had more big bang features for our
next 1.x release (especially EE 5 stuff -- where's the web and web
services integration? How is OpenEJB 3 coming? What about XBean
integration? Retrotranslator? Yoko?). Also, a fair amount of
non-new-feature items on the list were included in 1.1.1...
Thanks,
Aaron
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
> > On 9/7/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * [NOJIRA] Upgrade ActiveMQ from 3.2 to 4.1 (see http://
> >> incubator.apache.org/activemq for features)
> >
> > You can find a list of new features in ActiveMQ 4.0 here:
> > http://activemq.com/site/changes-in-40.html
> > and the new features in 4.1 here:
> > http://activemq.com/site/new-features-in-41.html
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
>
