[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

jbertram
A few recent interactions with confused users has caused me some concern
about the clarity, or lack thereof, regarding the future of ActiveMQ.  In
short, I think users don't really understand where ActiveMQ is going in the
future so they don't know which broker to use for new projects or if they
should start the migration process for existing installations.  In general
I think it's extremely helpful for users to understand where a project is
headed as it instills confidence and consolidates effort.

There's been talk of ActiveMQ's "next generation" for awhile now.  However,
when you Google for "ActiveMQ next generation" [1] the first result is for
Apollo, a project that has been "unofficially" declared dead [2].  The
second result is for the Artemis migration guide, and the third result is
for a mostly blank page about "ActiveMQ6" [3].

This is clearly a confusing message for the community and whether you're a
die-hard fan of 5.x, sad that Apollo's dead, or excited about Artemis I
hope we can agree that clarifying the future of ActiveMQ is important and
necessary.

In short, I think we really need a project road-map.  Will effort be put
into 5.x to address some of its short-comings so it can become a legitimate
6.x?  If not, will Artemis become ActiveMQ 6?  Are there other options
here?  Once consensus is reached here we should define related timelines.

After that we can turn to the website which needs a face-lift plus updates
to reflect our road-map.


Justin

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=activemq+next+generation
[2] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html
[3] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

Tim Bain
I'm also curious about who gets to make the decision about what the future
direction is for the project. Nominally it's probably "the community", but
that's rather abstract, so I'd like to know what the process is by which
the decision will be made and who gets to provide what inputs into the
decision.

Tim

On Nov 15, 2017 5:50 AM, "Justin Bertram" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A few recent interactions with confused users has caused me some concern
about the clarity, or lack thereof, regarding the future of ActiveMQ.  In
short, I think users don't really understand where ActiveMQ is going in the
future so they don't know which broker to use for new projects or if they
should start the migration process for existing installations.  In general
I think it's extremely helpful for users to understand where a project is
headed as it instills confidence and consolidates effort.

There's been talk of ActiveMQ's "next generation" for awhile now.  However,
when you Google for "ActiveMQ next generation" [1] the first result is for
Apollo, a project that has been "unofficially" declared dead [2].  The
second result is for the Artemis migration guide, and the third result is
for a mostly blank page about "ActiveMQ6" [3].

This is clearly a confusing message for the community and whether you're a
die-hard fan of 5.x, sad that Apollo's dead, or excited about Artemis I
hope we can agree that clarifying the future of ActiveMQ is important and
necessary.

In short, I think we really need a project road-map.  Will effort be put
into 5.x to address some of its short-comings so it can become a legitimate
6.x?  If not, will Artemis become ActiveMQ 6?  Are there other options
here?  Once consensus is reached here we should define related timelines.

After that we can turn to the website which needs a face-lift plus updates
to reflect our road-map.


Justin

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=activemq+next+generation
[2] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html
[3] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

Justin Bertram
Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC [1].


Justin

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#what-is-a-pmc

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Tim Bain <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm also curious about who gets to make the decision about what the future
> direction is for the project. Nominally it's probably "the community", but
> that's rather abstract, so I'd like to know what the process is by which
> the decision will be made and who gets to provide what inputs into the
> decision.
>
> Tim
>
> On Nov 15, 2017 5:50 AM, "Justin Bertram" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A few recent interactions with confused users has caused me some concern
> about the clarity, or lack thereof, regarding the future of ActiveMQ.  In
> short, I think users don't really understand where ActiveMQ is going in the
> future so they don't know which broker to use for new projects or if they
> should start the migration process for existing installations.  In general
> I think it's extremely helpful for users to understand where a project is
> headed as it instills confidence and consolidates effort.
>
> There's been talk of ActiveMQ's "next generation" for awhile now.  However,
> when you Google for "ActiveMQ next generation" [1] the first result is for
> Apollo, a project that has been "unofficially" declared dead [2].  The
> second result is for the Artemis migration guide, and the third result is
> for a mostly blank page about "ActiveMQ6" [3].
>
> This is clearly a confusing message for the community and whether you're a
> die-hard fan of 5.x, sad that Apollo's dead, or excited about Artemis I
> hope we can agree that clarifying the future of ActiveMQ is important and
> necessary.
>
> In short, I think we really need a project road-map.  Will effort be put
> into 5.x to address some of its short-comings so it can become a legitimate
> 6.x?  If not, will Artemis become ActiveMQ 6?  Are there other options
> here?  Once consensus is reached here we should define related timelines.
>
> After that we can turn to the website which needs a face-lift plus updates
> to reflect our road-map.
>
>
> Justin
>
> [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=activemq+next+generation
> [2] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html
> [3] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

Jiri Danek
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC [1].
>

Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got to
it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
--
Jiri Daněk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

Justin Bertram
> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ?

http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq-pmc


Justin

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Jiri Danek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC
> [1].
> >
>
> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got to
> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
> --
> Jiri Daněk
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Jiri Danek
On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC [1].
>>
> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got to
> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
The info for that is here:
https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq


--
Tim Bish

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

christopher.l.shannon
I think it's pretty clear at this point that Artemis is the future.
However, I don't know that renaming it to ActiveMQ 6 makes any sense as it
would be a lot of work and more confusion.

My opinion would be to just have the roadmap say Artemis is the future and
recommended broker and drop plans to have an ActiveMQ 6 release.  We can
just keep using the current versioning that Artemis is already using.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC [1].
>>>
>>> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got to
>> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
>>
> The info for that is here:
> https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq
>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

clebertsuconic
Not trying to push any directions here. But just wanted to point out that
Artemis could just be a codename. That would still allow a next version to
be whatever we want and change docs only.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it's pretty clear at this point that Artemis is the future.
> However, I don't know that renaming it to ActiveMQ 6 makes any sense as it
> would be a lot of work and more confusion.
>
> My opinion would be to just have the roadmap say Artemis is the future and
> recommended broker and drop plans to have an ActiveMQ 6 release.  We can
> just keep using the current versioning that Artemis is already using.
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC
> [1].
> >>>
> >>> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got
> to
> >> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
> >>
> > The info for that is here:
> > https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> >
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

christopher.l.shannon
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
Also, I should add that if a bunch of people think it's better to rename
Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 then that is fine too.  My opinion about keeping it
as Artemis is it would be easier but if people feel strongly about making
it ActiveMQ 6 and want to do the work to rename everything that is fine
with me as well.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it's pretty clear at this point that Artemis is the future.
> However, I don't know that renaming it to ActiveMQ 6 makes any sense as it
> would be a lot of work and more confusion.
>
> My opinion would be to just have the roadmap say Artemis is the future and
> recommended broker and drop plans to have an ActiveMQ 6 release.  We can
> just keep using the current versioning that Artemis is already using.
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC
>>>> [1].
>>>>
>>>> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got
>>> to
>>> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
>>>
>> The info for that is here:
>> https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Bish
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

MichaelAndrePearce
My personal two cents is

I think of 5.x as ActiveMQ Classic.
And the next gen is ActiveMQ Artemis which has its own versioning.

really it’s the Message outwards to user that just needs updating and being clear IMO.

Cheers
Mike

Sent from my iPhone

> On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:22, Christopher Shannon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Also, I should add that if a bunch of people think it's better to rename
> Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 then that is fine too.  My opinion about keeping it
> as Artemis is it would be easier but if people feel strongly about making
> it ActiveMQ 6 and want to do the work to rename everything that is fine
> with me as well.
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I think it's pretty clear at this point that Artemis is the future.
>> However, I don't know that renaming it to ActiveMQ 6 makes any sense as it
>> would be a lot of work and more confusion.
>>
>> My opinion would be to just have the roadmap say Artemis is the future and
>> recommended broker and drop plans to have an ActiveMQ 6 release.  We can
>> just keep using the current versioning that Artemis is already using.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC
>>>>> [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got
>>>> to
>>>> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
>>>>
>>> The info for that is here:
>>> https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Bish
>>>
>>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Christopher Shannon
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also, I should add that if a bunch of people think it's better to rename
> Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 then that is fine too.  My opinion about keeping it
> as Artemis is it would be easier but if people feel strongly about making
> it ActiveMQ 6 and want to do the work to rename everything that is fine
> with me as well.

I don't have a strong opinion on making it 6. to me it's just a matter
that 6 would make it easier to send the same message.

I wouldn't rename packages as I said on the other message... but I
would change docs.. (The website will need to be changed regardless).


> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I think it's pretty clear at this point that Artemis is the future.
>> However, I don't know that renaming it to ActiveMQ 6 makes any sense as it
>> would be a lot of work and more confusion.
>>
>> My opinion would be to just have the roadmap say Artemis is the future and
>> recommended broker and drop plans to have an ActiveMQ 6 release.  We can
>> just keep using the current versioning that Artemis is already using.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC
>>>>> [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got
>>>> to
>>>> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html
>>>>
>>> The info for that is here:
>>> https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Bish
>>>
>>>
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

bsnyder-2
In reply to this post by Justin Bertram


On 2017-11-15 07:59, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC [1].

The question you asked is a good one and something that the PMC should clarify for the user community, especially given the confusion amongst the different projects under the ActiveMQ umbrella. Indeed, the PMC is charged with the overall responsibility of the project, which includes what you have referred to as the roadmap. Speaking in more general terms, a discussion about this type of topic should take place on the dev@activemq list so that anyone can participate. But certainly decision making authority for such project direction questions lies in the hands of the PMC.

Bruce
--
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/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

jgenender
I'll throw in my .02 on this...

I think the discussion should be here and in the open and I am confident the
PMC will decide based on the community, and not on their personal view.

I also think we need to be very careful in any discussion about sun-setting
AMQ 5.X.  "Classic" as it has been discussed still is the #1 installed MQ in
the world.  It is most certainly heavily used, still much more so than
Artemis (at least from my view).  As long as the community is strong, AMQ
5.X should continue forward.

I am looking forward to Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6.  IMHO, it should be
called ActiveMQ because I believe that was the original intent... that
Artemis was the code name, and it would be ActiveMQ 6 once it hit 1.0 (at
least that's what I thought was going to happen).  If we want people to take
Artemis as a part of ActiveMQ, and we want to up its game regarding usage
and community, I really think keeping it in the ActiveMQ lineup is really
the way to go.  I hopefully look forward to that as I really want to see a
lot more installations of the product. :-)

Just my usual .02.

Jeff



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

christopher.l.shannon
Jeff,

I don't think anyone is proposing killing off 5.x at this point, but just
clarifying what the future is in terms of Artemis and ActiveMQ 6.  I do
think we need to retire Apollo though.

Chris

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:41 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'll throw in my .02 on this...
>
> I think the discussion should be here and in the open and I am confident
> the
> PMC will decide based on the community, and not on their personal view.
>
> I also think we need to be very careful in any discussion about sun-setting
> AMQ 5.X.  "Classic" as it has been discussed still is the #1 installed MQ
> in
> the world.  It is most certainly heavily used, still much more so than
> Artemis (at least from my view).  As long as the community is strong, AMQ
> 5.X should continue forward.
>
> I am looking forward to Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6.  IMHO, it should be
> called ActiveMQ because I believe that was the original intent... that
> Artemis was the code name, and it would be ActiveMQ 6 once it hit 1.0 (at
> least that's what I thought was going to happen).  If we want people to
> take
> Artemis as a part of ActiveMQ, and we want to up its game regarding usage
> and community, I really think keeping it in the ActiveMQ lineup is really
> the way to go.  I hopefully look forward to that as I really want to see a
> lot more installations of the product. :-)
>
> Just my usual .02.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-
> f2341805.html
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

clebertsuconic
Lets keep the discussion copied on the dev list as well, in case there
is someone subscribing only to the dev list.


For those who do not follow the user's list.. this link should provide
some context:

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html;cid=1511214285551-676

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Christopher Shannon
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I don't think anyone is proposing killing off 5.x at this point, but just
> clarifying what the future is in terms of Artemis and ActiveMQ 6.  I do
> think we need to retire Apollo though.
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:41 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'll throw in my .02 on this...
>>
>> I think the discussion should be here and in the open and I am confident
>> the
>> PMC will decide based on the community, and not on their personal view.
>>
>> I also think we need to be very careful in any discussion about sun-setting
>> AMQ 5.X.  "Classic" as it has been discussed still is the #1 installed MQ
>> in
>> the world.  It is most certainly heavily used, still much more so than
>> Artemis (at least from my view).  As long as the community is strong, AMQ
>> 5.X should continue forward.
>>
>> I am looking forward to Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6.  IMHO, it should be
>> called ActiveMQ because I believe that was the original intent... that
>> Artemis was the code name, and it would be ActiveMQ 6 once it hit 1.0 (at
>> least that's what I thought was going to happen).  If we want people to
>> take
>> Artemis as a part of ActiveMQ, and we want to up its game regarding usage
>> and community, I really think keeping it in the ActiveMQ lineup is really
>> the way to go.  I hopefully look forward to that as I really want to see a
>> lot more installations of the product. :-)
>>
>> Just my usual .02.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-
>> f2341805.html
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

artnaseef
At this point, I am fairly open to ideas on the path forward.  And I agree
with above statements that the PMC decides, but that it's best to have this
discussion in a transparent/open manner (i.e. on a public discussion board
like this one).

Jeff makes a good point about adoption.

Another thought - having both brokers long term seems redundant as there is
a huge amount of overlap, and I believe the intent (please correct me if
this is wrong) is eventually to have Artemis superset all of the *key*
functionality from AMQ 5.x.

In order to facilitate a move, users of AMQ 5.x are going to need a smooth
transition.  Note that I don't mean to say it has to be seamless, just that
it has to be smooth - easy enough to understand and execute.

Let me pose some questions here that may help move this forward:

  - Do we know what it takes to migrates customers from AMQ 5.x to Artemis?
  - Do we have a comprehensive list of features that will remain supported?
  - Do we have a list of features that will not be retained?

If we "Begin with the End in Mind" (Stephen Covey) and work our way back, I
think we can make a viable plan to consolidate.

On the other hand, if we decide that's out-of-scope, at least in the near
term, then that's fine too.

In that case, I think the response back to folks who ask is that they are
two separate solutions each with their benefits and disadvantages...

Hope this helps.  I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the long-term
vision here.  With that said, I do have some strong thoughts on
consolidation in the near-term and what's important in getting to a
long-term vision.




--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

Tim Bain
On Nov 21, 2017 3:00 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Another thought - having both brokers long term seems redundant as there
is
> a huge amount of overlap, and I believe the intent (please correct me if
> this is wrong) is eventually to have Artemis superset all of the *key*
> functionality from AMQ 5.x.

I think all the features are covered at this point. The one exception
is Retroactive Consumers.. however this could be done with browsers
and paging.
It still on my personal list of improvements I want to make. I could
make it happen sooner with some demand.. So I don't think it blocks
anything going forward.

The other feature that has been brought a lot of times.. is virtual
topics.. however with the address model in Artemis.. it's not needed..
as virtual topic was a way to emulate a queue within a topic, which is
pretty much what we have on the address model.

>
> In order to facilitate a move, users of AMQ 5.x are going to need a smooth
> transition.  Note that I don't mean to say it has to be seamless, just
that
> it has to be smooth - easy enough to understand and execute.

>
> Let me pose some questions here that may help move this forward:
>
>   - Do we know what it takes to migrates customers from AMQ 5.x to
Artemis?


https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/migration.html

^^ It's in good shape IMO already.


That guide has lots of good information, but it explicitly punts on the
question of how to migrate a cluster that has existing unconsumed messages.
Does a migration guide for that subject already exist? If so, let's link to
it; if not, I don't think we're ready yet.

There are two possible ways to migrate when messages are pre-existing:
either you take an outage and convert the messages store somehow, or you
network the old and new brokers but have clients use only the new broker,
and you configure the brokers so that all of the messages flow from the old
broker to the new one without downtime. Note that the second approach won't
migrate scheduled messages, so it might be necessary to use a hybrid
approach depending on the use case. Are Artemis and ActiveMQ capable of
being networked together to allow the second approach? I've always assumed
that it could be done since Artemis supports OpenWire, but I've never heard
anyone say it was possible. I think we'd want the migration guide to talk a
bit about options for how to perform the actual operational migration, not
just how to configure Artemis to make it behave similarly to ActiveMQ or
HornetQ (though that's important too, and the guide does that well). Also,
the guide should talk about what happens if a user wants to migrate when
their broker contains more messages than will fit into Artemis's memory,
since it's possible that some users might be in that situation. (Hopefully
not many people, though!)

Also, I don't see any discussion in the guide of SSL transports even though
a number of other protocols (both network and application) are mentioned,
so that looks like something else that should be added.

>   - Do we have a comprehensive list of features that will remain
supported?
>   - Do we have a list of features that will not be retained?

We had a few discussions in the past... there could be minor features
still needed.. but it's getting better each day as users needed new
functionality.

The community aspect from the apache activemq community certainly
improved the software.

IMHO ActiveMQ Artemis is good enough that it can be improved as needed
when missing points are found.. being an AMQ 5 missing  feature or
anything else that users will need.


I don't think this bit addresses the last two questions that Art raised,
which are not "do we have everything we need and can we afford to wait for
a fix if we discover that something's missing?" but rather "do we have a
written list of which features we're keeping and which if any we're not so
we can refer users to them?"

> Hope this helps.  I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the long-term
> vision here.  With that said, I do have some strong thoughts on
> consolidation in the near-term and what's important in getting to a
> long-term vision.

Artemis has been under works for 3 years and something now...
I am biased to speak about it as I work on it as part of my daily job
on this codebase.. but I have seen it getting better each day.. with
contributors from different companies.


I wonder whether we should provide some simple utilities to help users
migrate their config files. The guide makes it sound like they correspond
closely, so it should be relatively easy to convert any parts that can be
converted (automatically, or at least with user input) while also
highlighting any configuration that requires manual attention (which gives
us an opportunity to point the user towards documentation about the options
and any trade-offs that might come with them). That could also let us build
a JAAS config file for anyone who's using the Simple Authentication Plugin.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

clebertsuconic
The documentation does talk about those things.  Migration guide is just a
quick guide on how to migrate but it does not replace the documentation.

There was some good suggestions you made here as to tools to move
configuration automatically.   But that’s not a requirement to make any
progress. We won’t ever get anuwhere if we aim for perfection as there will
always be space for more.  Nothing in life is perfect.

Tools and features I think it’s orthogonal to the discussion about the
direction.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:49 PM Tim Bain <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2017 3:00 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Another thought - having both brokers long term seems redundant as there
> is
> > a huge amount of overlap, and I believe the intent (please correct me if
> > this is wrong) is eventually to have Artemis superset all of the *key*
> > functionality from AMQ 5.x.
>
> I think all the features are covered at this point. The one exception
> is Retroactive Consumers.. however this could be done with browsers
> and paging.
> It still on my personal list of improvements I want to make. I could
> make it happen sooner with some demand.. So I don't think it blocks
> anything going forward.
>
> The other feature that has been brought a lot of times.. is virtual
> topics.. however with the address model in Artemis.. it's not needed..
> as virtual topic was a way to emulate a queue within a topic, which is
> pretty much what we have on the address model.
>
> >
> > In order to facilitate a move, users of AMQ 5.x are going to need a
> smooth
> > transition.  Note that I don't mean to say it has to be seamless, just
> that
> > it has to be smooth - easy enough to understand and execute.
>
> >
> > Let me pose some questions here that may help move this forward:
> >
> >   - Do we know what it takes to migrates customers from AMQ 5.x to
> Artemis?
>
>
> https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/migration.html
>
> ^^ It's in good shape IMO already.
>
>
> That guide has lots of good information, but it explicitly punts on the
> question of how to migrate a cluster that has existing unconsumed messages.
> Does a migration guide for that subject already exist? If so, let's link to
> it; if not, I don't think we're ready yet.
>
> There are two possible ways to migrate when messages are pre-existing:
> either you take an outage and convert the messages store somehow, or you
> network the old and new brokers but have clients use only the new broker,
> and you configure the brokers so that all of the messages flow from the old
> broker to the new one without downtime. Note that the second approach won't
> migrate scheduled messages, so it might be necessary to use a hybrid
> approach depending on the use case. Are Artemis and ActiveMQ capable of
> being networked together to allow the second approach? I've always assumed
> that it could be done since Artemis supports OpenWire, but I've never heard
> anyone say it was possible. I think we'd want the migration guide to talk a
> bit about options for how to perform the actual operational migration, not
> just how to configure Artemis to make it behave similarly to ActiveMQ or
> HornetQ (though that's important too, and the guide does that well). Also,
> the guide should talk about what happens if a user wants to migrate when
> their broker contains more messages than will fit into Artemis's memory,
> since it's possible that some users might be in that situation. (Hopefully
> not many people, though!)
>
> Also, I don't see any discussion in the guide of SSL transports even though
> a number of other protocols (both network and application) are mentioned,
> so that looks like something else that should be added.
>
> >   - Do we have a comprehensive list of features that will remain
> supported?
> >   - Do we have a list of features that will not be retained?
>
> We had a few discussions in the past... there could be minor features
> still needed.. but it's getting better each day as users needed new
> functionality.
>
> The community aspect from the apache activemq community certainly
> improved the software.
>
> IMHO ActiveMQ Artemis is good enough that it can be improved as needed
> when missing points are found.. being an AMQ 5 missing  feature or
> anything else that users will need.
>
>
> I don't think this bit addresses the last two questions that Art raised,
> which are not "do we have everything we need and can we afford to wait for
> a fix if we discover that something's missing?" but rather "do we have a
> written list of which features we're keeping and which if any we're not so
> we can refer users to them?"
>
> > Hope this helps.  I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the long-term
> > vision here.  With that said, I do have some strong thoughts on
> > consolidation in the near-term and what's important in getting to a
> > long-term vision.
>
> Artemis has been under works for 3 years and something now...
> I am biased to speak about it as I work on it as part of my daily job
> on this codebase.. but I have seen it getting better each day.. with
> contributors from different companies.
>
>
> I wonder whether we should provide some simple utilities to help users
> migrate their config files. The guide makes it sound like they correspond
> closely, so it should be relatively easy to convert any parts that can be
> converted (automatically, or at least with user input) while also
> highlighting any configuration that requires manual attention (which gives
> us an opportunity to point the user towards documentation about the options
> and any trade-offs that might come with them). That could also let us build
> a JAAS config file for anyone who's using the Simple Authentication Plugin.
>
--
Clebert Suconic