[DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
181 messages Options
1234 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

rajdavies
(was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)

Thanks Lionel - I agree.

The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of the community.

It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a sub-project with its own name.
Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.

Rob
25 March 2015 06:58
(for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more
than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)

Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.

Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
(like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.

In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ. The
ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline, "ActiveMQ's
next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.

For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?

If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions later
(who trusts a .0 version anyway?).

If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ project
should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.

Cheers,

Lionel Cons
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Hadrian Zbarcea
Completely agree, thanks Rob. The proposal is use a name for the hornetq
subproject that avoids confusion and doesn't use a version number.
Hornetq *may* become the next activemq 6 (or 7, or whatever the case)
once it builds a strong, self sustained community.

Like in the Apollo case, the technology merit is not in question. One of
the ASF core beliefs is that the key ingredient for a mature [1] open
source project is the community.

I hope too that the hornetq community achieves its goals,
Hadrian

[1]
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html


On 03/25/2015 04:47 AM, Rob Davies wrote:

> (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
> community.
> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
> sub-project with its own name.
> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
> Rob
>> Lionel Cons <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> 25 March 2015 06:58
>> (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves
>> more
>> than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>
>> Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started
>> in 2010
>> as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that
>> time,
>> the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>
>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo
>> developments
>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>> still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>
>> In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to
>> ActiveMQ. The
>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>> "ActiveMQ's
>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>
>> For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>> HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>
>> If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we
>> should get
>> a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor
>> versions later
>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>
>> If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>> ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve
>> there
>> and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>> project
>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lionel Cons
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Chris Mattmann
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.

Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache

ActiveMQ?

Cheers,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Davies <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>
>(was: HornetQ &
>ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
>Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
>The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
> community.
>On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
>It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>sub-project with its own name.
>Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
>Rob
>
>  
>  
>   Lionel Cons <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      
>  25 March 2015
>06:58
>
>
>  (for the sake of clarity, I
> think that this important subject deserves more
> than the [VOTE]
>thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>
>Apollo (tagline =
> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>as an
>ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>the
> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>
>Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>(like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>still officially
>advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>
>In
> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
> The
>ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
> "ActiveMQ's
>next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>
>For
> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>HornetQ
> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>
>If the
>answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>a
> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>later
>(who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>
>If the answer is no
>(or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>ActiveMQ
>sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>and
> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>project
>should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Lionel
> Cons
>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

gtully
In reply to this post by rajdavies
I am 100% behind the idea of building activemq 6 around the hornetq donation. There is no other viable option.

If we start another sub project there will still be confusion about the future. It is time to make a decision about direction and rally around it.

Is anyone else in the community working on activemq 6?


On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
(was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)

Thanks Lionel - I agree.

The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of the community.

It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a sub-project with its own name.
Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.

Rob
25 March 2015 06:58
(for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more
than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)

Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.

Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
(like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.

In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ. The
ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline, "ActiveMQ's
next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.

For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?

If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions later
(who trusts a .0 version anyway?).

If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ project
should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.

Cheers,

Lionel Cons

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

rajdavies
In reply to this post by Chris Mattmann
hi Chris,

The HornetQ code has been donated to the ActiveMQ project, and that code is going through its first release under the ASF. The vote [1] - sparked some debate - which was is why this thread started - my fault I should have been clearer.

[1] http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-td4692911.html

25 March 2015 14:07
Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.

Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache

ActiveMQ?

Cheers,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Davies [hidden email]
Reply-To: [hidden email]
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation



25 March 2015 08:47
(was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)

Thanks Lionel - I agree.

The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of the community.

It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a sub-project with its own name.
Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.

Rob
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by Chris Mattmann
Hi Chris,

There was a code donation that completed last year. It started on
07/08/2014 (in a thread named: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ)
and completed in Oct.

HornetQ was a long time project and community of RedHat. The idea, the
way I understood it at the time, was to take relevant parts better
implemented in HornetQ and rewrite parts of ActiveMQ that were showing
their age (Hiram pointed out a few in the other thread yesterday).

The HornetQ community opted to have the ActiveMQ pmc instead of the
incubator as the sponsoring entity. There are many RH people on the
ActiveMQ pmc, the technology space is the same (messaging), it probably
was considered a better fit and and easier way to build a community.

The HornetQ subproject opted to use the ActiveMQ6 name as the name of
the project. However, the subproject is kept independent and there are
efforts being made to align some of the features with the current
ActiveMQ (ver 5.x). I believe the expectation is that users will migrate
to hornetq eventually, based on superior technical merits. That is a
migration, not an upgrade, with minimal chances of going back. The
ActiveMQ6 name is probably intended to help with that and create the
perception that it is the same project.

Only a very small part of the current ActiveMQ community is actively
involved in HornetQ. There are concerns expressed by a few PMC and ASF
members that the activemq6 name creates an confusion. Hornetq is not yet
a stable community.

The proposal is to change the name for the HornetQ to something that
reflects the current status, and not activemq6. It it relevant to note,
that with hornetq being named activemq6, the current activemq project
has no possibility of having a major version upgrade. It was also noted
by community members (non-committers) as well (see Lionel Cons' email)
that there is a precedent that didn't succeed as anticipated to name
another ActiveMQ subproject (apollo) as activemq 6. The name is now
reused for HornetQ.

One analogy would be Microsoft for instance donating IIS to the ASF as a
httpd subproject and name it httpd3, because the current httpd is old
and has no future.

Chris, your thoughts on the issue are highly appreciated. This does not
provide the complete picture, but it's hopefully clear enough.
Hadrian



On 03/25/2015 10:07 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:

> Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
> I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
>
> Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>
> ActiveMQ?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Davies <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>
>> (was: HornetQ &
>> ActiveMQ's next generation)
>>
>> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>>
>> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
>> community.
>> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
>> the community.
>>
>> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>> sub-project with its own name.
>> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
>> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>    
>>
>>     Lionel Cons <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>   25 March 2015
>> 06:58
>>
>>
>>   (for the sake of clarity, I
>> think that this important subject deserves more
>> than the [VOTE]
>> thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>
>> Apollo (tagline =
>> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>> as an
>> ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>> the
>> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>
>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>> 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>> been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>> still officially
>> advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>
>> In
>> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
>> The
>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>> "ActiveMQ's
>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>
>> For
>> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>> HornetQ
>> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>
>> If the
>> answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>> a
>> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>> later
>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>
>> If the answer is no
>> (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>> ActiveMQ
>> sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>> and
>> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>> project
>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lionel
>> Cons
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Chris Mattmann
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Thanks for the explanation, Rob. Got it.

I have replied else-thread on this.

Cheers,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Davies <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:42 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>
>hi Chris,
>
>The HornetQ code has been donated to the ActiveMQ project, and that code
> is going through its first release under the ASF. The vote [1] -
>sparked some debate - which was is why this thread started - my fault I
>should have been clearer.
>
>[1]
>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-td4692911
>.html
>
>
>  
>  
>   Chris Mattmann <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      
>  25 March 2015
>14:07
>
>
>  Can someone please explain
> what is being discussed?
>I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties
>here.
>
>Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>
>ActiveMQ?
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>-----Original
> Message-----
>From: Rob Davies <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>Reply-To:
> <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at
>1:47 AM
>To: <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>Subject: [DISCUSS}
>HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>  
>   Rob Davies <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      
>  25 March 2015
>08:47
>
>
>  
>(was: HornetQ &
>ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
>Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
>The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
> community.
>On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
>It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>sub-project with its own name.
>Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
>Rob
>
>  
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Chris Mattmann
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
Thanks Hadrian that helps to clarify things.

Large code donations to the ASF need to start with an
IP clearance short form especially if my read is right
below and this large code donation was not entirely authored
by the ActiveMQ PMC and those with ICLAs on file. Has this
been done? FYI:

http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html


(note this links to the Incubator and yes I know that
this wasn’t done through the Incubator but the form is
still valid)

Furthermore, have their been discussions about those
members of the community that were not represented on the
ActiveMQ PMC? The PMC is the one that releases Apache code,
and so I’m wondering why the Apache ActiveMQ PMC brought in
a large code contribution consisting of authorship by people
that weren’t on the Apache ActiveMQ PMC - not fully out of
precedent but I would have expected to see an influx of those
members of HornetQ community on the ActiveMQ PMC if the
code base is changing direction and the community surrounding
it is as well. Also if HornetQ is a Redhat product or originally
was a Redhat product, we need paperwork on file such as a Software
Grant Agreement (SGA) that helps to cleanly bring large code
elements into the community:

https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt


Note the above advice are typically things that would have
happened had this contribution come through the Incubator.

Finally - Apache doesn’t really do “sub projects” anymore.
It’s been a long time. The clarification on that is that a project
can have multiple “products” (aka Lucene which releases Solr,
Lucene, PyLucene, etc.) but these cannot be distinct projects
and communities. If they are, they need to be made as such
by an act of the Board (direct to TLP; spinning out), and/or
by going through the Incubator.

Cheers,
Chris



-----Original Message-----
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:45 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>Hi Chris,
>
>There was a code donation that completed last year. It started on
>07/08/2014 (in a thread named: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ)
>and completed in Oct.
>
>HornetQ was a long time project and community of RedHat. The idea, the
>way I understood it at the time, was to take relevant parts better
>implemented in HornetQ and rewrite parts of ActiveMQ that were showing
>their age (Hiram pointed out a few in the other thread yesterday).
>
>The HornetQ community opted to have the ActiveMQ pmc instead of the
>incubator as the sponsoring entity. There are many RH people on the
>ActiveMQ pmc, the technology space is the same (messaging), it probably
>was considered a better fit and and easier way to build a community.
>
>The HornetQ subproject opted to use the ActiveMQ6 name as the name of
>the project. However, the subproject is kept independent and there are
>efforts being made to align some of the features with the current
>ActiveMQ (ver 5.x). I believe the expectation is that users will migrate
>to hornetq eventually, based on superior technical merits. That is a
>migration, not an upgrade, with minimal chances of going back. The
>ActiveMQ6 name is probably intended to help with that and create the
>perception that it is the same project.
>
>Only a very small part of the current ActiveMQ community is actively
>involved in HornetQ. There are concerns expressed by a few PMC and ASF
>members that the activemq6 name creates an confusion. Hornetq is not yet
>a stable community.
>
>The proposal is to change the name for the HornetQ to something that
>reflects the current status, and not activemq6. It it relevant to note,
>that with hornetq being named activemq6, the current activemq project
>has no possibility of having a major version upgrade. It was also noted
>by community members (non-committers) as well (see Lionel Cons' email)
>that there is a precedent that didn't succeed as anticipated to name
>another ActiveMQ subproject (apollo) as activemq 6. The name is now
>reused for HornetQ.
>
>One analogy would be Microsoft for instance donating IIS to the ASF as a
>httpd subproject and name it httpd3, because the current httpd is old
>and has no future.
>
>Chris, your thoughts on the issue are highly appreciated. This does not
>provide the complete picture, but it's hopefully clear enough.
>Hadrian
>
>
>
>On 03/25/2015 10:07 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
>> Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
>> I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
>>
>> Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>>
>> ActiveMQ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Davies <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>
>>> (was: HornetQ &
>>> ActiveMQ's next generation)
>>>
>>> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>>>
>>> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>>> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>>> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the
>>>ActiveMQ
>>> community.
>>> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members
>>>of
>>> the community.
>>>
>>> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>>> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>>> sub-project with its own name.
>>> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>>> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>>> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its
>>>own
>>> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>>> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>     Lionel Cons <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>   25 March 2015
>>> 06:58
>>>
>>>
>>>   (for the sake of clarity, I
>>> think that this important subject deserves more
>>> than the [VOTE]
>>> thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>>
>>> Apollo (tagline =
>>> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>>> as an
>>> ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>>> the
>>> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>>
>>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>>> 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>>> been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>>> still officially
>>> advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>>
>>> In
>>> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
>>> The
>>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>>> "ActiveMQ's
>>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>>
>>> For
>>> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>>> HornetQ
>>> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>>
>>> If the
>>> answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>>> a
>>> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>>> later
>>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>>
>>> If the answer is no
>>> (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>>> and
>>> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>>> project
>>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Lionel
>>> Cons
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

gtully
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Both Rob and Hadrian seem to agree that a key stumbling block is the "need to grow a diverse community first". Then it could be called ActiveMQ 6. I don't buy that.

There are two bits, diverse and community.

The qualifier diverse is a problem with the ActiveMQ community today. It has been a long standing issue and it is related to the nature of the problem space and to industry consolidation. A code donation cannot be expected to rectify that on its own. The only way to rectify this issue is growth.

On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6 code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc. 

This is happening *in* the ActiveMQ community. 

Rallying around activemq 6 milestones is an opportunity to grow the community and reach a new audience.

Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ rudderless.

Gary.


On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
(was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)

Thanks Lionel - I agree.

The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of the community.

It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a sub-project with its own name.
Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.

Rob
25 March 2015 06:58
(for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more
than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)

Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.

Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
(like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.

In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ. The
ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline, "ActiveMQ's
next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.

For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?

If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions later
(who trusts a .0 version anyway?).

If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ project
should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.

Cheers,

Lionel Cons

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Chris Mattmann
Can someone please point me to the below verification
and code donation threads for review?

Thank you.

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 6:49 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all
>of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the
>activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by
>additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no
>longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6
>code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a
>container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto
>destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

David Jencks
In reply to this post by gtully
I completely agree.  This is what I was fumbling towards trying to say.  (not trying to take credit for saying anything first…)

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Both Rob and Hadrian seem to agree that a key stumbling block is the "need to grow a diverse community first". Then it could be called ActiveMQ 6. I don't buy that.
>
> There are two bits, diverse and community.
>
> The qualifier diverse is a problem with the ActiveMQ community today. It has been a long standing issue and it is related to the nature of the problem space and to industry consolidation. A code donation cannot be expected to rectify that on its own. The only way to rectify this issue is growth.
>
> On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6 code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc.
>
> This is happening *in* the ActiveMQ community.
>
> Rallying around activemq 6 milestones is an opportunity to grow the community and reach a new audience.
>
> Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ rudderless.
>
> Gary.
>
>
> On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
> (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of the community.
>
> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a sub-project with its own name.
> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting development of ActiveMQ 6 around a  HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
> Rob
>> Lionel Cons 25 March 2015 06:58
>> (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more
>> than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>
>> Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>> as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>> the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>
>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>> still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>
>> In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ. The
>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline, "ActiveMQ's
>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>
>> For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>> HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>
>> If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>> a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions later
>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>
>> If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>> ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>> and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ project
>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lionel Cons
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

artnaseef
In reply to this post by gtully
Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will succeed as ActiveMQ 6.

Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad to be having this discussion.

The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it mean that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.

So, let's put this back into perspective.

We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the ActiveMQ community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that Java is even older than ActiveMQ).

ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries, and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.

Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology; ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a presumption that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.

Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid merits described.

I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

David Jencks
Sorry, can't stop typing.

My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not going to pick activemq.  I thought Hiram said this pretty explicitly.  Did I misunderstand?

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>
> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that
> direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad to be
> having this discussion.
>
> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it mean
> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>
> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>
> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the ActiveMQ
> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that
> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>
> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>
> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of
> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a presumption
> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>
> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
> merits described.
>
> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to
> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693805.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Hadrian Zbarcea
This is not a view shared by everybody.

The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
in the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
solution. If hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from
the activemq community will jump boat. Who knows.

But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
the solution you mention in the incubator right?

After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
for the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction.
They can choose to be as close or distant they want from the current
activemq features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards
what activemq6 should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision
the hornetq community has for their project.

Cheers,
Hadrian


On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>
> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not going to pick activemq.  I thought Hiram said this pretty explicitly.  Did I misunderstand?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that
>> direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad to be
>> having this discussion.
>>
>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it mean
>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>
>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>
>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the ActiveMQ
>> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that
>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>
>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>
>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of
>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a presumption
>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>
>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
>> merits described.
>>
>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to
>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693805.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

andytaylor
Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>
> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started in
> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution. If
> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>
> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>
> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for for
> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They can
> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what activemq6
> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
> community has for their project.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>
>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>> factors is not going to pick activemq.  I thought Hiram said this pretty
>> explicitly.  Did I misunderstand?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>> that
>>> direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad to
>>> be
>>> having this discussion.
>>>
>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it
>>> mean
>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>
>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>
>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>> that
>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>
>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength
>>> of
>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a presumption
>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>
>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>> valid
>>> merits described.
>>>
>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to
>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

christopher.l.shannon
My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
last summer.  It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
generation of ActiveMQ.

Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things.  My team is in
the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age.  Hiram has already made good points
earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
technical standpoint going forward.  Another really big thing for us is
that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base.  We
need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
etc) which is something HornetQ does.

I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
instructions.  We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
type.  We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker.  Lastly, it
would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.

In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
make things even more confusing.  As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
the community join together to support one broker going forward would
produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
causing it to die out.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is not a view shared by everybody.
> >
> > The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
> in
> > the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution.
> If
> > hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
> > community will jump boat. Who knows.
> >
> > But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
> > the solution you mention in the incubator right?
> >
> > After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
> > the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
> for
> > the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
> can
> > choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
> > features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
> activemq6
> > should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
> > community has for their project.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, can't stop typing.
> >>
> >> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
> >> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
> >> factors is not going to pick activemq.  I thought Hiram said this pretty
> >> explicitly.  Did I misunderstand?
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
> the
> >>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
> really
> >>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
> >>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
> >>>
> >>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
> >>> that
> >>> direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad to
> >>> be
> >>> having this discussion.
> >>>
> >>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
> >>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it
> >>> mean
> >>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
> >>>
> >>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
> >>>
> >>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the
> >>> ActiveMQ
> >>> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
> >>> that
> >>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
> >>>
> >>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
> >>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
> industries,
> >>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
> >>>
> >>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
> strength
> >>> of
> >>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
> technology;
> >>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a
> presumption
> >>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
> >>>
> >>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
> >>> valid
> >>> merits described.
> >>>
> >>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to
> >>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> >>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
> >>> tp4693781p4693805.html
> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

gtully
In reply to this post by Chris Mattmann
Chris,
donation vote -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmMMv5EGA-ZA3mABH3oNfx-fA5PV+dri-oXA_+Tc_kuWmg@...%3E

the start of ip clearance -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKF+bsovr7Hvn-rMYkb3pF6hoGjx7nuJWzT_Nh8MyC4usRBX9A@...%3E

A successful release vote, will completed the process by validating a
release. The source has already been verified by a number of pmc
members who have voted +1. Before we announce we can complete the
ip-clearance document.


On 25 March 2015 at 17:00, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can someone please point me to the below verification
> and code donation threads for review?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 6:49 AM
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all
>>of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the
>>activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by
>>additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no
>>longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6
>>code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a
>>container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto
>>destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc.
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and
building the community in the incubator does not prevent anything you
mentioned from happing, right?

Apollo did it right actually. Some folks said that they had a better
idea, called the project Apollo, not activemq-6 (although there were the
same references to plans for apollo to become the core of the next
generation of activemq). And the Apollo community went on to prove its
viability. The fact that it didn't happen has many reasons, most of them
not technical.

As an ASF member I am interested in the viability and maturity of a
project community. HornetQ is not yet there. And the fact fact that it's
called activemq-6 effectively prevents the current mature activemq
project to have a version 6 in any shape that is not HornetQ.

I was kinda neutral initially and did not get involved in this thread
initially. But the passion to keep the activemq6 name for hornetq, makes
me very suspicious (coupled with past experiences) that I am getting
very strongly in favour of hornetq being re-hosted in the incubator
where there are many very experienced ASFer that could mentor and assist
(more than in the ActiveMQ community). If HornetQ will not happen, the
same way Apollo didn't, this will prove to be another distraction. Some
are excited about the future, others are frustrated about the present.

Cheers,
Hadrian


On 03/25/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:

> My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
> and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
> last summer.  It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
> the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
> our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
> generation of ActiveMQ.
>
> Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things.  My team is in
> the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
> ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age.  Hiram has already made good points
> earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
> technical standpoint going forward.  Another really big thing for us is
> that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
> doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base.  We
> need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
> etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>
> I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
> supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
> OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
> instructions.  We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
> there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
> type.  We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
> include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker.  Lastly, it
> would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
> track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>
> In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
> make things even more confusing.  As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
> causing it to die out.
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>>
>>> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
>> in
>>> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution.
>> If
>>> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>>> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>>
>>> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
>>> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>>
>>> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
>>> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>> for
>>> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>> can
>>> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>> activemq6
>>> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>>> community has for their project.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>>>
>>>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>>> factors is not going to pick activemq.  I thought Hiram said this pretty
>>>> explicitly.  Did I misunderstand?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>> the
>>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>> really
>>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>>>> that
>>>>> direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad to
>>>>> be
>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it
>>>>> mean
>>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the
>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>>> that
>>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>>>
>>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
>>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>> industries,
>>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>> strength
>>>>> of
>>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>> technology;
>>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a
>> presumption
>>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>>> valid
>>>>> merits described.
>>>>>
>>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to
>>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Tracy Snell
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon

> On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Christopher Shannon <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
> causing it to die out.

I think everyone (mostly) agrees with that. So the next step is getting consensus with the community on what that one broker going forward looks like. Picking one then expecting the community to follow seems a bit backwards.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

Tracy Snell
In reply to this post by andytaylor
I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue).  The current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side advocating a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not going the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an insult to the non HornetQ side of this community.

As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6 that includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built in the community.  Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to take over the ActiveMQ name.


> On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.

1234 ... 10