ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Kevin Burton
Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features are
actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
reasonable requirement at this point.

--

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

clebertsuconic
At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target
compilation still java 1.7

We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped
back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but
since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending
java8.


The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up
till recently.


I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to
use java7 on the binaries at this point.


Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it...
we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps!




On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features are
> actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
> reasonable requirement at this point.
>
> --
>
> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> … or check out my Google+ profile
> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> <http://spinn3r.com>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Kevin Burton
Yes.  Sort of.  There was a regression for persistent=false which breaks it
for advisories.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665

I was *hoping* it fixed the issue.

If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find where
it broke.

One other problem I ran into:

https://github.com/apache/activemq

Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.)

master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches..

The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed.  So I was
trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been
renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P

We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install.  Right now
it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages.  5.10.x has had a number
of issues for us.  I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged for
6.0.0.  The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have
been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty
major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues.

I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire queue
serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very
large with nothing being served.  I was going to try to get on 5.11 or
6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories.

I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw.  But I need to figure
out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into
purgatory.  Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to avoid
having my work left behind.

Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help?

Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no, we’re
not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation! :)

If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the graveyard
and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull
request for that as well.

Kevin




On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target
> compilation still java 1.7
>
> We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped
> back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but
> since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending
> java8.
>
>
> The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up
> till recently.
>
>
> I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to
> use java7 on the binaries at this point.
>
>
> Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it...
> we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps!
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features are
> > actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
> > reasonable requirement at this point.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> > … or check out my Google+ profile
> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> > <http://spinn3r.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>



--

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

clebertsuconic
as we said on the vote thread, activemq6 is This is a first release of
the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP, STOMP, CORE and
OPENWIRE.

It's a new dev effort and it's from a different repo:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/

So I don't think the issue you mentioned would affect the new repo / codebase.

We are being quite active on moving forward with this codebase and we
are striving and working hard here. So any issues please let us know.

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes.  Sort of.  There was a regression for persistent=false which breaks it
> for advisories.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665
>
> I was *hoping* it fixed the issue.
>
> If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find where
> it broke.
>
> One other problem I ran into:
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq
>
> Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.)
>
> master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches..
>
> The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed.  So I was
> trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been
> renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P
>
> We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install.  Right now
> it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages.  5.10.x has had a number
> of issues for us.  I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged for
> 6.0.0.  The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have
> been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty
> major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues.
>
> I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire queue
> serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very
> large with nothing being served.  I was going to try to get on 5.11 or
> 6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories.
>
> I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw.  But I need to figure
> out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into
> purgatory.  Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to avoid
> having my work left behind.
>
> Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help?
>
> Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no, we’re
> not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation! :)
>
> If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the graveyard
> and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull
> request for that as well.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target
>> compilation still java 1.7
>>
>> We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped
>> back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but
>> since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending
>> java8.
>>
>>
>> The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up
>> till recently.
>>
>>
>> I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to
>> use java7 on the binaries at this point.
>>
>>
>> Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it...
>> we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features are
>> > actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
>> > reasonable requirement at this point.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> > … or check out my Google+ profile
>> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> > <http://spinn3r.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> … or check out my Google+ profile
> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> <http://spinn3r.com>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Kevin Burton
Why call it ActiveMQ 6.0 and not HornetMQ (or another name)?

Is hornetq a fork of ActiveMQ ?

We’re still having issues with ActiveMQ and the idea of migrating to
another projects sounds like a nightmare for us.

There are people using the current code base of ActiveMQ and this means
that 5.x is dead.

Unless I’m missing something.  Which I hope I am :)

I’ll try to do a lot more reading on the subject and ActiveMQ 6.0.. maybe
it will solve all my problems :)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> as we said on the vote thread, activemq6 is This is a first release of
> the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP, STOMP, CORE and
> OPENWIRE.
>
> It's a new dev effort and it's from a different repo:
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/
>
> So I don't think the issue you mentioned would affect the new repo /
> codebase.
>
> We are being quite active on moving forward with this codebase and we
> are striving and working hard here. So any issues please let us know.
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Yes.  Sort of.  There was a regression for persistent=false which breaks
> it
> > for advisories.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665
> >
> > I was *hoping* it fixed the issue.
> >
> > If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find
> where
> > it broke.
> >
> > One other problem I ran into:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq
> >
> > Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.)
> >
> > master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches..
> >
> > The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed.  So I was
> > trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been
> > renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P
> >
> > We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install.  Right now
> > it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages.  5.10.x has had a
> number
> > of issues for us.  I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged
> for
> > 6.0.0.  The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have
> > been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty
> > major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues.
> >
> > I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire queue
> > serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very
> > large with nothing being served.  I was going to try to get on 5.11 or
> > 6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories.
> >
> > I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw.  But I need to
> figure
> > out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into
> > purgatory.  Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to
> avoid
> > having my work left behind.
> >
> > Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help?
> >
> > Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no,
> we’re
> > not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation!
> :)
> >
> > If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the graveyard
> > and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull
> > request for that as well.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target
> >> compilation still java 1.7
> >>
> >> We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped
> >> back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but
> >> since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending
> >> java8.
> >>
> >>
> >> The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up
> >> till recently.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to
> >> use java7 on the binaries at this point.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it...
> >> we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> > Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features are
> >> > actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
> >> > reasonable requirement at this point.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> >> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> >> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> >> > … or check out my Google+ profile
> >> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> >> > <http://spinn3r.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> > … or check out my Google+ profile
> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> > <http://spinn3r.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>



--

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

jgoodyear
I don't think AMQ 5.x is dead, plenty of people maintaining it :)

Cheers,
Jamie

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why call it ActiveMQ 6.0 and not HornetMQ (or another name)?
>
> Is hornetq a fork of ActiveMQ ?
>
> We’re still having issues with ActiveMQ and the idea of migrating to
> another projects sounds like a nightmare for us.
>
> There are people using the current code base of ActiveMQ and this means
> that 5.x is dead.
>
> Unless I’m missing something.  Which I hope I am :)
>
> I’ll try to do a lot more reading on the subject and ActiveMQ 6.0.. maybe
> it will solve all my problems :)
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> as we said on the vote thread, activemq6 is This is a first release of
>> the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP, STOMP, CORE and
>> OPENWIRE.
>>
>> It's a new dev effort and it's from a different repo:
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/
>>
>> So I don't think the issue you mentioned would affect the new repo /
>> codebase.
>>
>> We are being quite active on moving forward with this codebase and we
>> are striving and working hard here. So any issues please let us know.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Yes.  Sort of.  There was a regression for persistent=false which breaks
>> it
>> > for advisories.
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665
>> >
>> > I was *hoping* it fixed the issue.
>> >
>> > If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find
>> where
>> > it broke.
>> >
>> > One other problem I ran into:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/activemq
>> >
>> > Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.)
>> >
>> > master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches..
>> >
>> > The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed.  So I was
>> > trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been
>> > renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P
>> >
>> > We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install.  Right now
>> > it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages.  5.10.x has had a
>> number
>> > of issues for us.  I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged
>> for
>> > 6.0.0.  The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have
>> > been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty
>> > major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues.
>> >
>> > I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire queue
>> > serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very
>> > large with nothing being served.  I was going to try to get on 5.11 or
>> > 6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories.
>> >
>> > I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw.  But I need to
>> figure
>> > out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into
>> > purgatory.  Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to
>> avoid
>> > having my work left behind.
>> >
>> > Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help?
>> >
>> > Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no,
>> we’re
>> > not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation!
>> :)
>> >
>> > If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the graveyard
>> > and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull
>> > request for that as well.
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target
>> >> compilation still java 1.7
>> >>
>> >> We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped
>> >> back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but
>> >> since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending
>> >> java8.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up
>> >> till recently.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to
>> >> use java7 on the binaries at this point.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it...
>> >> we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features are
>> >> > actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
>> >> > reasonable requirement at this point.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> >> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> >> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> >> > … or check out my Google+ profile
>> >> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> >> > <http://spinn3r.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Clebert Suconic
>> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> > … or check out my Google+ profile
>> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> > <http://spinn3r.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> … or check out my Google+ profile
> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> <http://spinn3r.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

dejanb
In reply to this post by Kevin Burton
Hi Kevin,

5.x is not dead. HornetQ JMS engine has a good architecture and
performances and was donated to ActiveMQ project so we can join efforts in
creating a next generation broker that will be faster and more stable. It
is not a drop-in replacement for the current 5.x. So the development of 6.x
and 5.x will continue in parallel for a long while. There has been work
already done on 6.x compatibility with the current ActiveMQ clients, but
that’s just a start.

We should document all this and lay the roadmap for future development soon
after the release.


Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email]
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why call it ActiveMQ 6.0 and not HornetMQ (or another name)?
>
> Is hornetq a fork of ActiveMQ ?
>
> We’re still having issues with ActiveMQ and the idea of migrating to
> another projects sounds like a nightmare for us.
>
> There are people using the current code base of ActiveMQ and this means
> that 5.x is dead.
>
> Unless I’m missing something.  Which I hope I am :)
>
> I’ll try to do a lot more reading on the subject and ActiveMQ 6.0.. maybe
> it will solve all my problems :)
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > as we said on the vote thread, activemq6 is This is a first release of
> > the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP, STOMP, CORE and
> > OPENWIRE.
> >
> > It's a new dev effort and it's from a different repo:
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/
> >
> > So I don't think the issue you mentioned would affect the new repo /
> > codebase.
> >
> > We are being quite active on moving forward with this codebase and we
> > are striving and working hard here. So any issues please let us know.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > Yes.  Sort of.  There was a regression for persistent=false which
> breaks
> > it
> > > for advisories.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665
> > >
> > > I was *hoping* it fixed the issue.
> > >
> > > If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find
> > where
> > > it broke.
> > >
> > > One other problem I ran into:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq
> > >
> > > Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.)
> > >
> > > master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches..
> > >
> > > The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed.  So I was
> > > trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been
> > > renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P
> > >
> > > We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install.  Right
> now
> > > it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages.  5.10.x has had a
> > number
> > > of issues for us.  I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged
> > for
> > > 6.0.0.  The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have
> > > been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty
> > > major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues.
> > >
> > > I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire
> queue
> > > serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very
> > > large with nothing being served.  I was going to try to get on 5.11 or
> > > 6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories.
> > >
> > > I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw.  But I need to
> > figure
> > > out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into
> > > purgatory.  Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to
> > avoid
> > > having my work left behind.
> > >
> > > Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help?
> > >
> > > Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no,
> > we’re
> > > not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation!
> > :)
> > >
> > > If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the
> graveyard
> > > and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull
> > > request for that as well.
> > >
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target
> > >> compilation still java 1.7
> > >>
> > >> We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped
> > >> back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but
> > >> since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending
> > >> java8.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up
> > >> till recently.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to
> > >> use java7 on the binaries at this point.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it...
> > >> we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> > Just curious.  We’re still on Java 1.7.  I assume Java 8 features
> are
> > >> > actually used.  Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a
> > >> > reasonable requirement at this point.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> >
> > >> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> > >> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> > >> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> > >> > … or check out my Google+ profile
> > >> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> > >> > <http://spinn3r.com>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Clebert Suconic
> > >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> > >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> > > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> > > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> > > … or check out my Google+ profile
> > > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> > > <http://spinn3r.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> … or check out my Google+ profile
> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> <http://spinn3r.com>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

artnaseef
ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ 5.x.

The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for HornetQ.  Yes, it's confusing.

Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as ActiveMQ - until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch me using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack me in the back of the head ;-).

I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were confused and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were upgrading ActiveMQ.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Kevin Burton
Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.

I think it’s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.

That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different things.

Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
> 5.x.
>
> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for HornetQ.
> Yes, it's confusing.
>
> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
> ActiveMQ -
> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch me
> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack me
> in the back of the head ;-).
>
> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were confused
> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693463.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



--

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Petter Nordlander
I can only agree.

ActiveMQ 6.0.0, by the name, suggests that it¹s a successor to ActiveMQ,
which it¹s not as it¹s a successor to HornetQ with some elements from
ActiveMQ. Great work though, I like the initiative as such.

As long as there is no upgrade path, the name will confuse users. A lot of
people will try it out just to find that half of the features they were
used to are gone. I guess a good start would be to clarify things on the
ActiveMQ homepage.

BR Petter

Den 2015-03-19 20:40 skrev Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>:

>Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
>HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
>
>I think it¹s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
>lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
>
>That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
>So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different
>things.
>
>Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
>perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
>
>On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
>> 5.x.
>>
>> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for
>>HornetQ.
>> Yes, it's confusing.
>>
>> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
>> ActiveMQ -
>> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch
>>me
>> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack
>>me
>> in the back of the head ;-).
>>
>> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were
>>confused
>> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
>> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
>>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp46
>>93434p4693463.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>Š or check out my Google+ profile
><https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
><http://spinn3r.com>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Weiqi Gao
All,

I agree that at some point (probably before the official ActiveMQ 6.0.0
release) the fact that ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is the successor of HornetQ
2.4.5.Final, not ActiveMQ 5.x needs to be publicized.

I'm a HornetQ (via JBoss/WildFly) user, and I only found this out
through twitter because I follow Clebert already.

There are probably users of HornetQ 2.4.x who are not aware of the
Apache donation and are wondering why the development activity on the
HornetQ GitHub repo has slowed down.

--
Weiqi Gao
[hidden email]
http://weiqigao.blogspot.com

On 3/19/2015 3:15 PM, Petter Nordlander wrote:

> I can only agree.
>
> ActiveMQ 6.0.0, by the name, suggests that it¹s a successor to ActiveMQ,
> which it¹s not as it¹s a successor to HornetQ with some elements from
> ActiveMQ. Great work though, I like the initiative as such.
>
> As long as there is no upgrade path, the name will confuse users. A lot of
> people will try it out just to find that half of the features they were
> used to are gone. I guess a good start would be to clarify things on the
> ActiveMQ homepage.
>
> BR Petter
>
> Den 2015-03-19 20:40 skrev Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
>> HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
>>
>> I think it¹s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
>> lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
>>
>> That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
>> So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different
>> things.
>>
>> Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
>> perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
>>> 5.x.
>>>
>>> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for
>>> HornetQ.
>>> Yes, it's confusing.
>>>
>>> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
>>> ActiveMQ -
>>> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch
>>> me
>>> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack
>>> me
>>> in the back of the head ;-).
>>>
>>> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were
>>> confused
>>> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
>>> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp46
>>> 93434p4693463.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> Š or check out my Google+ profile
>> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> <http://spinn3r.com>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Kevin Burton
In reply to this post by Petter Nordlander
When I get more time to look at 6.0.0 I’ll write up a post from an ActiveMQ
perspective about what’s missing.  What I’m worried about is that ActiveMQ
has a LOT of features (advisories for example) that would need some sort of
support in 6.0.0 to make a migration from 5.0 to 6.0 possible.

The reason we selected AMQ 5.x was because of these features and that they
are *required* for our product to even work.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Petter Nordlander <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I can only agree.
>
> ActiveMQ 6.0.0, by the name, suggests that it¹s a successor to ActiveMQ,
> which it¹s not as it¹s a successor to HornetQ with some elements from
> ActiveMQ. Great work though, I like the initiative as such.
>
> As long as there is no upgrade path, the name will confuse users. A lot of
> people will try it out just to find that half of the features they were
> used to are gone. I guess a good start would be to clarify things on the
> ActiveMQ homepage.
>
> BR Petter
>
> Den 2015-03-19 20:40 skrev Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>:
>
> >Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
> >HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
> >
> >I think it¹s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
> >lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
> >
> >That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
> >So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different
> >things.
> >
> >Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
> >perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
> >
> >On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
> >> 5.x.
> >>
> >> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for
> >>HornetQ.
> >> Yes, it's confusing.
> >>
> >> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
> >> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
> >> ActiveMQ -
> >> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch
> >>me
> >> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack
> >>me
> >> in the back of the head ;-).
> >>
> >> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were
> >>confused
> >> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
> >> upgrading ActiveMQ.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> >>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp46
> >>93434p4693463.html
> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> >Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> >blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> >Š or check out my Google+ profile
> ><https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> ><http://spinn3r.com>
>
>


--

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

clebertsuconic
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When I get more time to look at 6.0.0 I’ll write up a post from an ActiveMQ
> perspective about what’s missing.  What I’m worried about is that ActiveMQ
> has a LOT of features (advisories for example) that would need some sort of
> support in 6.0.0 to make a migration from 5.0 to 6.0 possible.

http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/docs/6.0.0/management.html#management-notifications



>
> The reason we selected AMQ 5.x was because of these features and that they
> are *required* for our product to even work.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Petter Nordlander <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I can only agree.
>>
>> ActiveMQ 6.0.0, by the name, suggests that it¹s a successor to ActiveMQ,
>> which it¹s not as it¹s a successor to HornetQ with some elements from
>> ActiveMQ. Great work though, I like the initiative as such.
>>
>> As long as there is no upgrade path, the name will confuse users. A lot of
>> people will try it out just to find that half of the features they were
>> used to are gone. I guess a good start would be to clarify things on the
>> ActiveMQ homepage.
>>
>> BR Petter
>>
>> Den 2015-03-19 20:40 skrev Kevin Burton <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> >Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
>> >HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
>> >
>> >I think it¹s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
>> >lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
>> >
>> >That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
>> >So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different
>> >things.
>> >
>> >Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
>> >perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
>> >
>> >On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
>> >> 5.x.
>> >>
>> >> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for
>> >>HornetQ.
>> >> Yes, it's confusing.
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
>> >> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
>> >> ActiveMQ -
>> >> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch
>> >>me
>> >> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack
>> >>me
>> >> in the back of the head ;-).
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were
>> >>confused
>> >> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
>> >> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp46
>> >>93434p4693463.html
>> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> >Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> >blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
>> >Š or check out my Google+ profile
>> ><https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
>> ><http://spinn3r.com>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> … or check out my Google+ profile
> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> <http://spinn3r.com>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

artnaseef
In reply to this post by Kevin Burton
Hey - where is this home page for "AMQ 6"?

Searching via google and browsing the ActiveMQ site, I only found an old Apollo page.

BTW - I don't know the state of Apollo, but I do know it's a totally separate set of source code from ActiveMQ and HornetQ.  Stating more clearly - there are three separate source repositories: ActiveMQ, Apollo, and HornetQ.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

clebertsuconic
It is not released *yet*:

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-td4692911.html;cid=1426798955679-329


the page should be up after the release, then we can add anything
there about apollo, 6 and 5

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:50 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey - where is this home page for "AMQ 6"?
>
> Searching via google and browsing the ActiveMQ site, I only found an old
> Apollo page.
>
> BTW - I don't know the state of Apollo, but I do know it's a totally
> separate set of source code from ActiveMQ and HornetQ.  Stating more clearly
> - there are three separate source repositories: ActiveMQ, Apollo, and
> HornetQ.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693494.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by artnaseef
the page is staged as part of the vote thread BTW. it should be
uploaded after being approved.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:50 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey - where is this home page for "AMQ 6"?
>
> Searching via google and browsing the ActiveMQ site, I only found an old
> Apollo page.
>
> BTW - I don't know the state of Apollo, but I do know it's a totally
> separate set of source code from ActiveMQ and HornetQ.  Stating more clearly
> - there are three separate source repositories: ActiveMQ, Apollo, and
> HornetQ.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693494.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

Krzysztof Sobkowiak
Hi

Will ActiveMQ6 support OSGi like ActiveMQ5?

Regards
Krzysztof

On 19.03.2015 22:05, Clebert Suconic wrote:

> the page is staged as part of the vote thread BTW. it should be
> uploaded after being approved.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:50 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hey - where is this home page for "AMQ 6"?
>>
>> Searching via google and browsing the ActiveMQ site, I only found an old
>> Apollo page.
>>
>> BTW - I don't know the state of Apollo, but I do know it's a totally
>> separate set of source code from ActiveMQ and HornetQ.  Stating more clearly
>> - there are three separate source repositories: ActiveMQ, Apollo, and
>> HornetQ.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693494.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak

JEE & OSS Architect
Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini SSC <http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/en>
Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

rajdavies
In reply to this post by Kevin Burton
At some point, it could well make sense to call the HornetQ release ActiveMQ 6 - but not yet. This has caused a lot of confusion- it should be called something else ??

> On 19 Mar 2015, at 19:40, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it.  Maybe just on the
> HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
>
> I think it’s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
> lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
>
> That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
> So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different things.
>
> Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ?  if so
> perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
>> 5.x.
>>
>> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for HornetQ.
>> Yes, it's confusing.
>>
>> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
>> ActiveMQ -
>> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other.  If you catch me
>> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack me
>> in the back of the head ;-).
>>
>> I'm sorry for your confusion.  It is a major concern that you were confused
>> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
>> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693463.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> … or check out my Google+ profile
> <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> <http://spinn3r.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by Krzysztof Sobkowiak
I believe there is a jira.  I will lookup later and if I can't find it will create it.

-- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone.

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 17:38, Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Will ActiveMQ6 support OSGi like ActiveMQ5?
>
> Regards
> Krzysztof
>
>> On 19.03.2015 22:05, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> the page is staged as part of the vote thread BTW. it should be
>> uploaded after being approved.
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:50 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hey - where is this home page for "AMQ 6"?
>>>
>>> Searching via google and browsing the ActiveMQ site, I only found an old
>>> Apollo page.
>>>
>>> BTW - I don't know the state of Apollo, but I do know it's a totally
>>> separate set of source code from ActiveMQ and HornetQ.  Stating more clearly
>>> - there are three separate source repositories: ActiveMQ, Apollo, and
>>> HornetQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693494.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Krzysztof Sobkowiak
>
> JEE & OSS Architect
> Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini SSC <http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/en>
> Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

artnaseef
In reply to this post by rajdavies
+1

I think the point at which HornetQ becomes ActiveMQ 6 is a great question.
12