Hi guys,
even if I'm not ActiveMQ PMC, let me express my thoughts:
1/ in order to avoid to disturb the users, I would prefer to avoid to
have ActiveMQ 7 or whatever for HornetQ. IMHO, the branding provides
information to the user, and people may be lost if we rename HornetQ
as ActiveMQ x.
2/
Art,
inline -
Gary - remember the idea of feedback flow control? I still think that is
a better approach to PFC in spite of being told that ActiveMQ doesn't want
large changes of that nature. And how about approaches to solving temporary
destination race conditions across a network of
Chris,
From a branding perspective. If you peek at the activemq6 repository
or the release candidates for the first release of the code donation
you will see that there is no reference to HornetQ. There has been
trojan work to remove all such references to negate any trademark
issues. Maybe there
On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:56 PM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID
wrote:
My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking
a messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not
going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this
Chris,
My comment that the ActiveMQ community could die out is based on the fact
that naturally if the community is split then users will migrate towards
one product or the other. I could be wrong of course, but as an outsider
who's been following the discussions, it seems like there are several
Art,
what would stop the current trunk jumping from 5.x to 7.x and skipping
6, if the need arose?
On 24 March 2015 at 20:40, artnaseef a...@artnaseef.com wrote:
Agreed.
Preventing the existing ActiveMQ code base from moving from the 5.x to a 6.x
version is a bad thing.
We already have
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann mattm...@apache.org wrote:
If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
Note we recently went through a similar
Hadrian,
working through your rationale
on 1, there is nothing stopping any member from educating themselves
and making informed decisions.
on 2, the existing committers identify the synergy that is possible
between the code bases. That too comes from education via the code.
on 3, what is the
Hi Hiram,
It’s much more than removing references. Please see:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
It’s also an involved process that needs to include
committees like trademarks@, etc.
We need to involve people and the PMC in particular needs
to work with the appropriate committees.
Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or jump to
a competitor? What’s your point?
Actually, yes, there are organizations that expand their activemq
operations based on the current code base. Not sure about new users. I
heard of users who started to use
Thanks for your explanation.
As I understand, Openwire required that both of endpoints must have direct
connection ( at least one) for communication. However, we can connect via
the load balancing which have elastic IP ( at least one connect each message
exchange). I try to search but seem that
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5684?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14382129#comment-14382129
]
Timothy Bish commented on AMQ-5684:
---
Thanks chuck, that's very helpful. I had started
I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal
involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong)
that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ
code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy
5.x needs a new core.
I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
mentioned here, we had the impression the code was
That's great to hear that you have a large working HornetQ installation.
Why is renaming HornetQ to ActiveMQ-6 important to you?
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693863.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ -
Tim Burrage created AMQ-5688:
Summary: JMSRedeilivery not set if Consumer restarted.
Key: AMQ-5688
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5688
Project: ActiveMQ
Issue Type: Bug
Oh, and to your question - yes, it is reasonable to have 2 apache brokers.
There are already many Apache projects sharing spaces.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693864.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ -
Hi Chris,
If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
perspective.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Chris Mattmann mattm...@apache.org wrote:
John
Do you seriously think that would be wise?
Now it sounds like your advocating that we *could* have two separate brokers
maintained, but just using the same exact name by skipping around major
version numbers. I certainly will not back *that* plan.
Honestly, this response confuses me. I thought
I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt
the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to
happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have been an axis2
subproject called axis3.
I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said
I see how one could get that impression.
It's a shame it wasn't explicit in the original vote. Then we wouldn't have
this confusion. Poor communication is leading to conflict, division, and
discouragement.
--
View this message in context:
Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David,
can very well happen in the incubator.
The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very
On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can
very well happen in the incubator.
Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s
response.
In a separate
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David,
can very well happen in the incubator.
I think it's important to read Clebert's initial email on the subject of
donation:
That's great. I hope I've made it clear that I want to see HornetQ continue
on as well.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693871.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Github user davsclaus commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/commit/31cdedca5736d7be5fd7e2e843d76cd9e6fda436#commitcomment-10422053
Oh just spotted that running
```
git grep -i hornet
```
Shows some more code that likely could be
Github user jbertram commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/196#issuecomment-86735537
The references to HornetMQ probably weren't caught earlier because nobody
thought to search for HornetMQ since the broker's name is HornetQ (without
the M).
On 26 March 2015 at 17:46, artnaseef a...@artnaseef.com wrote:
Do you seriously think that would be wise?
Now it sounds like your advocating that we *could* have two separate brokers
maintained, but just using the same exact name by skipping around major
version numbers. I certainly will not
My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's
I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are
presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular
vendor and lack of
Yes it is absolutely reasonable and possible to have 2 competing
brokers. Competition is good for users. And this is my recommendation at
this point.
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 01:22 PM, dlalaina wrote:
Hello guys, I totally agree with last 2 David posts.
I'm responsible for the messaging and
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/commit/31cdedca5736d7be5fd7e2e843d76cd9e6fda436#commitcomment-10422012
Nice catch
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Actually the most important thing for me is to keep hornetq core alive,
because it's really good.
The (re)name is more a brand thing, amq6, hornetq3, newname1.
My point about using amq name, was more like: why to create a new amq core,
if there is the possibility to use hornetq core, which is
Github user davsclaus commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/196#issuecomment-86727631
There were 2 left over comments about hornetmq in the activemq6 source
code. Now a git grep returns empty
```
davsclaus:~/workspace/activemq-6 (polish)/$
GitHub user davsclaus opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/196
Polish and renamed hornetmq to activemq-6
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/davsclaus/activemq-6 polish
Alternatively you
Hello guys, I totally agree with last 2 David posts.
I'm responsible for the messaging and transactions platform/infrastructure
in Movile.com.
For the last 9 years we tried almost all brokers possibilities, ibm,
hornetq, amq, openmq, rabbitmq, sqs, etc, etc. And all kind of
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the
evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to happen
there.
That’s certainly possible, but that doesn’t change where we
Still even more baffled. I haven't seen anything on this list that indicates
any of the new activemq committters working on activemq6 think that hornetQ is
a thing separate from activemq so how it could be important or not is beyond my
comprehension. You must have some reason to think this
Github user HornetQBot commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/196#issuecomment-86727658
Can one of the admins verify this patch by saying ok to test?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
I think you are going to have more problems with this than it is worth
- Openwire and TCP is much more of a two way protocol, especially concerning
cluster update features and rebalance, the brokers
need to be able to fully communicate with the client for this to work.
The client and cluster
It’s possible for there to be 20+ Apache
brokers.
Apache doesn’t pick winners - we are here
to support all various communities. What’s
becoming increasingly clear to me is that this
is not a single community - there seem to be
several factions within it - which is largely
indicative of an
Christian Posta created AMQ-5689:
Summary: Queue dispatching hangs when there are redelivered
messages that don't match current consumer's selectors
Key: AMQ-5689
URL:
On Mar 26, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Chris Mattmann mattm...@apache.org wrote:
What do you mean the ActiveMQ has zero plans?
Do you mean Apache ActiveMQ has zero plans? Seriously Dan?
Do you speak for the PMC?
No. I speak for myself, but based on what I SEE in the community.
For the last several
I’m unsure how those claiming to not see an issue don’t see this one. It’s more
akin to a take over of a brand than a team moving to a new technology. There’s
the HornetQ team and the AMQ5 team with depressingly little cross over. That
should’ve been goal number one. Merging the teams in to one
On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's I
don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are presenting
at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
The ActiveMQ
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5679?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14382861#comment-14382861
]
Christian Posta commented on AMQ-5679:
--
K so i'll close this one as duplicate. there
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5679?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Christian Posta closed AMQ-5679.
Resolution: Duplicate
Duplicated by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5672
Wildcard
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5689?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14382878#comment-14382878
]
Christian Posta commented on AMQ-5689:
--
current patch here
What do you mean the ActiveMQ has zero plans?
Do you mean Apache ActiveMQ has zero plans? Seriously Dan?
Do you speak for the PMC?
Cheers,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:36 PM
To:
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/196#issuecomment-86749202
I contributed that check style I wrote to check style. They refactored it
and I'm waiting to be released on their satellite project before I can remove
this
Hi Gary,
Thanks. I just meant to contact trademarks with respect to
branding - the name HornetQ whether removed or not has caused
confusion here since it seems to be a pre-existing project.
It’s great that the PMC or committers have looked into this
and done due diligence but at the end of the
John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part
of the larger point. There is a serious
naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing
as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or
having the product be in compliance with the naming
This is my scenario. I have two consumers server:
- Server A has IP: 192.168.0.1
- Server B has IP: 192.168.0.2
Both servers have configured the activemq as below:
*transportConnector uri=tcp://192.168.0.X:61616
updateClusterClients=true*
In my system, I have one load balancing server (hardware
(please note mixed private/public lists)
Just to be clear: the ASF *must* own trademark rights to any software
project or product before it can become a top level Apache project.
This is the fundamental way that the ASF can ensure the project can
maintain independent governance in the future.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5684?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Chuck Rolke updated AMQ-5684:
-
Attachment: AMQ5684-reproducer.cs
AMQ5684-reproducer.cs is a Visual Studio 2012 C# program to reproduce the
54 matches
Mail list logo
