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
If Artemis were to reach a version 5 or version 6 I don't think there would
be any confusion. Realistically, no one is going to refer to it as
"ActiveMQ 5" or "ActiveMQ 6". They are going to say "Artemis 5" or "Artemis
6".
Anyways, this is now getting a bit off topic. I don't want to keep
+1
On 12/09/2023 16:15, Jeff Genender 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".
Jeff
On 2023/09/12 13:44:15 Christopher Shannon wrote:
I don't really see a need for "Classic" and I
We already have 4 component spaces on the site which has operated like
that for years. I dont think http://activemq.apache.org/activemq is
particularly an improvement or more obvious than whats there now,
personally. The site did used to use /artemis but changed away from
that to the current
Hi Justin
My point is not about the URL (absolutely right we can use our
existing URLs using "components"
https://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/ etc). My point is more
in the content and look'n feel. I think we should restyle/rework the
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
I still think it's important to have some kind of specific name or tag
(e.g. "Classic") to differentiate the two brokers, especially on the
website where the two are "next to" each other. Using a version number just
doesn't cut it in my opinion. For example, what happens when Artemis'
version
+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".
Jeff
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
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 wrote:
>
> Why
I ack your point (even if I don't necessarily agree regarding my
experience with AMQ/Karaf/OSGi :)), and we have a consensus. As I
said, I will continue the current approach with the required upgrades.
Regards
JB
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:01 AM Christoph Läubrich wrote:
>
> > I agree with the
On 9/11/23 17:14, Christopher Shannon 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
Seems sensible to me.
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 22:15, Christopher Shannon
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
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,
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
Hey JB-
I’m not sure I agree about changing them. Current approach allows for
‘optional’ feautres.
A couple things that this could impact:
1. Plugin extensions using xbean namespaces
2. The activemq-http component and other ’optional’ add-ons.
3. Other optional features— client-side blob
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
As we didn’t have consensus I paused on this one. But happy to prepare a
formal website PR with dedicated area etc.
Regards
JB
Le mar. 12 sept. 2023 à 10:54, Robbie Gemmell a
écrit :
> Have you got any work towards the linked proposals idea of refreshing
> the old 5.x docs etc on the website
> I agree with the overhead but is it really an issue
Of course it is an issue (depending on how much you embedd), at least it
vast disk, cpu, ram and network resources
> AMQ broker is a black box in Karaf/OSGi
So no configuration? No plugins? No management possible? Client only
ever use
I think the main thing anyone disagreed with was your proposed Leto
name being an improvement on things as they already were/are. There
was already a dedicated area on the website even then, it just still
doesnt contain much except the download page and a 'table of contents'
documentation page
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
ActiveMQ 5.x + 6.x, ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x yes...i.e no change.
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 13:34, Francois Papon
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,
I'm really glad someone already noted the various disadvantages of
uber jars that I thought of when reading the original email. Saved me
some typing.
I'd only expand upon the "Every update to a dependency will require a
full ActiveMQ release" point to more directly call it out as being a
security
Ok fair enough.
I will update the features and OSGi bundles accordingly.
Regards
JB
Le mar. 12 sept. 2023 à 10:41, Robbie Gemmell a
écrit :
> I'm really glad someone already noted the various disadvantages of
> uber jars that I thought of when reading the original email. Saved me
> some
Have you got any work towards the linked proposals idea of refreshing
the old 5.x docs etc on the website under its component area?
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 05:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree and it's actually something we likely discussed while ago
> related to renaming as
+1, In agreement with using the 6.x line given all the breaking changes.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:25 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Have you got any work towards the linked proposals idea of refreshing
> the old 5.x docs etc on the website under its component area?
>
> On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at
Just to be clear: I will keep the current approach upgrading to spring 6
etc. In the meantime, I will work on SMX/Karaf requirements for ActiveMQ.
Regards
JB
Le mar. 12 sept. 2023 à 10:51, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a
écrit :
> Ok fair enough.
>
> I will update the features and OSGi bundles
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
> On Sep 12, 2023, at 7:15 AM, Jeff Genender 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
Huge +1 for an ActiveMQ 6.0.
Great to see this discussion.
-David
> On Sep 11, 2023, at 2:14 PM, Christopher Shannon
> 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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
