> > As part of the roadmap discussion, we must also decide if one of the goals > for Artemis is still to be a drop-in replacement for ActiveMQ. I know that > at one time this was the goal, i.e., allow current ActiveMQ users to drop > in Artemis and have everything just continue to work. Is there still value > in this goal?
That’s still a goal. I am personally committed to that. > > Bruce > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:37 AM <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Its about having clear direction as a project. Im not saying it has to be > > artemis im not saying it has to be classic > > > > > > > > > > But there does have to be a single and very clear direction so end users > > have a clear understanding in the long term direction. > > > > > > > > > > Having ever changing direction is worse than having none at all also. It > > actually has a negative impact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This said last year i thought a clear direction was agreed. But if that > is > > to change, i think we need to be very clear what that is for both > classic, > > artemis and the clients. With actual real commitments, not just wooly > > aspirational ideas. > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 7:59 AM +0100, "Francois Papon" < > > francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > We can a see there is still an interest from the users to Apache > > ActiveMQ 5.x. > > > > In github we have 61 open PR => https://github.com/apache/activemq/pulls > > > > Why forcing users to migrate to Artemis if the community is still active? > > > > regards, > > > > François > > fpa...@apache.org > > > > Le 08/07/2019 à 18:15, michael.andre.pea...@me.com.INVALID a écrit : > > > I think as a project we need to be clear in direction here with one > > roadmap. To avoid users confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was on the understanding that as a community and PMC a roadmap was > > already agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this was for artemis to become activemq 6 was agreed and once it > has > > all features (and more) of 5 which is now nearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its one of the reasons over the years features like jms 2 there hasnt > > been effort to add it, as Artemis was the planned replacement that > brought > > jms 2 features amongst others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:13 PM +0100, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi JB, > > > > > > I think it make a lot of sense to focus on this points and I will be > > > more than happy to contribute! > > > > > > There is a very large community of users around the ActiveMQ 5.x and > > > it's still very widely use in production environment. > > > > > > I'm not sure that the users actually understand the difference between > > > ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis, and why Artemis will became ActiveMQ 6.x. > > > > > > If ActiveMQ 5.x still has a long life, I think that the community > should > > > be clear about the 2 projects name. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > François > > > fpa...@apache.org > > > > > > Le 18/06/2019 à 19:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> I would like to discuss with you about the ActiveMQ 5.x roadmap. > > >> > > >> Even if Artemis is there, the stack is different and we still have lot > > >> of users on ActiveMQ, and, as a ActiveMQ 5.x fan and contributor, I > > >> think it's worth to give a new "dimension" to ActiveMQ 5.x. > > >> > > >> As all Apache projects, ActiveMQ 5.x roadmap and use is driven by the > > >> community, so I would like to propose and share some ideas with the > > >> ActiveMQ community. > > >> > > >> I already imagine a new codename for ActiveMQ 5.x roadmap: ActiveMQ > > Missus. > > >> > > >> Basically, I would like to propose a roadmap around three major > points: > > >> > > >> 1. Modularity > > >> Today, ActiveMQ 5.x is a monolythic broker, even if most of the parts > > >> are already well isolated (persistent stores, transport connectors, > > >> etc). It makes sense to have some more "modular" and micro-services > > >> oriented, why not leveraging Apache Karaf with services. > > >> > > >> 2. Configuration backends > > >> We currently use Spring beans XML as main configuration backend (or > > >> blueprint in Karaf). I think it makes sense to update and split the > > >> configuration backend with something more "pluggable", and be able to > > >> expose new configuration format like yml. > > >> > > >> 3. Protocol/API update > > >> I would like to add support of JMS 2.0 in ActiveMQ 5.x and > check/update > > >> the other protocols/APIs. > > >> > > >> 4. Cloud friendly > > >> I already sent some ideas weeks ago about "cloud friendly features" in > > >> ActiveMQ 5.x. > > >> Basically, I would like to propose: > > >> - a replicated/distributed persistent store to be able to have several > > >> brokers running with a distributed store. I'm testing an update to > > >> KahaDB using Bookkeeper. > > >> - provide new discovery agents with support of Kubernetes, Hazelcast, > > ... > > >> > > >> I would love to hear the community about this ! ;) > > >> I'm planning to start a complete document to provide more details and > > >> "milestone". > > >> > > >> Thoughts ? > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > -- Clebert Suconic
