So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
-----邮件原件----- 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbert...@apache.org] 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis? > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache... This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion. Justin On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking > architecture for improved scalability and performance, an architecture > designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume, > low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I > understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine > that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users > out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of different > reasons, and there are developers in the community who are committed to > supporting "Classic." > > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those > features for a smooth transition. Of course there are differences > between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the documentation for more > details on that. > > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released > (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee > here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in > the community started looking at ways to deal with the performance and > scalability limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They > ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these > ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early > 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the Apollo subproject was > designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. However, the early > excitement around Apollo never coalesced into sustainable momentum. In > my opinion this was mainly due to the fact that Apollo was written in > Scala rather than Java which was used by ActiveMQ. However, the > architectural underpinnings were solid and not terribly different from > what was being implemented in the JBoss community in the HornetQ > broker. In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached > the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to > Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ > broker with all the great features and usability that the community > had come to expect along with a high-performance, non-blocking > architecture for the next generation of messaging applications. The > donation was accepted and the aforementioned goal has been in progress ever > since. > > I hope that helps answer some of your questions. > > > Justin > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.t...@outlook.com < > domson.t...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and >> artemis? >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped? >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future? >> >
