Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
BN
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

BN
I do not know if there is an existing thread on this subject but
-What is the difference between Active MQ and Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
It is possible that Artemis will eventually become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.x (and that it might eventually be branded as ActiveMQ 6.x), but no decision about that had been made as of April 2015
So what should one be advising developers to use Apache ActiveMQ Artemis which incidentally part of JBoss EAP 7.0 or use ActiveMQ 5.x which is the commercially known ActiveMQ?

Regards
BN
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

Tim Bain
I won't try to detail the differences; someone who knows Artemis well
should do that.  But one high-level difference is that Artemis implements
JMS 2.0 and ActiveMQ implements only 1.0.

One factor to consider is how risk-averse the organization is when choosing
software.  Artemis achieved 1.0 status in June of this year, which might be
too new (due to the potential for bugs, not due to any concerns about
whether Artemis will continue to be developed and supported) for a highly
risk averse organization.  Organizations that are comfortable closer to the
cutting edge might have no concerns about its relative newness and might
appreciate the fact that it's being very actively developed.

I'd always encourage someone considering using an open source product to
check out the bugs in the backlog, to get a sense of whether those problems
are likely to affect you given your expected usage scenarios.

Tim
I do not know if there is an existing thread on this subject but
-What is the difference between Active MQ and Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
It is possible that Artemis will eventually become the successor to ActiveMQ
5.x (and that it might eventually be branded as ActiveMQ 6.x), but no
decision about that had been made as of April 2015
So what should one be advising developers to use Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
which incidentally part of JBoss EAP 7.0 or use ActiveMQ 5.x which is the
commercially known ActiveMQ?

Regards
BN




--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-ActiveMQ-vs-Apache-ActiveMQ-Artemis-tp4703828.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

Justin Bertram-2
I want to clarify this point to avoid potential confusion.

While it's technically true that Artemis reached 1.0 in June of this year it's worth noting that it was based on what would have been HornetQ 2.5 (or perhaps 3.0). HornetQ has been baking in its own community and also as a part of JBoss and Wildfly Application Servers for the better part of 6 years. This also includes integration into Red Hat's JBoss Enterprise Application Platform as far back as 2012.

That said, the code-base has changed a fair bit since it was originally donated to Apache and became Artemis. New features have been added, libraries upgraded, bugs squashed, etc., but the broker's fundamental architecture and implementation is essentially unchanged.


Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bain" <[hidden email]>
To: "ActiveMQ Users" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:31:03 AM
Subject: Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

I won't try to detail the differences; someone who knows Artemis well
should do that.  But one high-level difference is that Artemis implements
JMS 2.0 and ActiveMQ implements only 1.0.

One factor to consider is how risk-averse the organization is when choosing
software.  Artemis achieved 1.0 status in June of this year, which might be
too new (due to the potential for bugs, not due to any concerns about
whether Artemis will continue to be developed and supported) for a highly
risk averse organization.  Organizations that are comfortable closer to the
cutting edge might have no concerns about its relative newness and might
appreciate the fact that it's being very actively developed.

I'd always encourage someone considering using an open source product to
check out the bugs in the backlog, to get a sense of whether those problems
are likely to affect you given your expected usage scenarios.

Tim
I do not know if there is an existing thread on this subject but
-What is the difference between Active MQ and Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
It is possible that Artemis will eventually become the successor to ActiveMQ
5.x (and that it might eventually be branded as ActiveMQ 6.x), but no
decision about that had been made as of April 2015
So what should one be advising developers to use Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
which incidentally part of JBoss EAP 7.0 or use ActiveMQ 5.x which is the
commercially known ActiveMQ?

Regards
BN




--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-ActiveMQ-vs-Apache-ActiveMQ-Artemis-tp4703828.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
BN
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

BN
In reply to this post by BN
Thanks Gents for the posts.
From what I gather are two points
1. If an organization is risk averse then they should stick to ActiveMQ
2. Artemis code base comes from HornetQ and so Artemis would be a natural transition for  people who are comfortable or have previous experience working with HornetQ.

I have one last question and that is the role of FUSE.

1. What are the standard techniques of integrating your Java code with ActiveMQ?
2. I know Fuse is part of JBoss EAP 7.x and with introduction of Fuse will the access to ActiveMQ be changed?

Thanks once again for all the support.

Regards
BN
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

Justin Bertram-2
The point I was trying to make was not what you described in your #2 (although what you said there is true). However, Artemis isn't simply for legacy HornetQ users. Numerous modifications and updates have been made to Artemis to make migration for ActiveMQ 5.x users smoother (although much work is still to be done).

My point was that just because Artemis 1.0 was released in June you shouldn't necessarily consider it a risk to adopt since it is largely based on code that's baked in a (non-Apache) community for the better part of 6 years now.

As far as integration goes, both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis are multi-protocol brokers so depending on what protocol you want to use will determine, in large part, how you integrate. Artemis supports JMS 1.0, 1.1, & 2.0 and well as STOMP 1.0 & 1.1, AMQP 1.0, and has initial support for OpenWire (the ActiveMQ 5.x protocol).

You asked about Fuse, but Fuse isn't an Apache project so I think you'd be better off asking those guys on their own lists.


Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "BN" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:35:43 PM
Subject: Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

Thanks Gents for the posts.
From what I gather are two points
1. If an organization is risk averse then they should stick to ActiveMQ
2. Artemis code base comes from HornetQ and so Artemis would be a natural
transition for  people who are comfortable or have previous experience
working with HornetQ.

I have one last question and that is the role of FUSE.

1. What are the standard techniques of integrating your Java code with
ActiveMQ?
2. I know Fuse is part of JBoss EAP 7.x and with introduction of Fuse will
the access to ActiveMQ be changed?

Thanks once again for all the support.

Regards
BN



--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-ActiveMQ-vs-Apache-ActiveMQ-Artemis-tp4703828p4703916.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis

Tim Bain
I don't think either Justin or I were trying to boil the complexities of
evaluating a software product's fit for an organization into a couple
checkboxes or a couple-question flow chart; the data type of these
decisions is double[], not boolean.

We're just giving you information to evaluate against your organization's
needs; the actual evaluation of it is still yours to do, in the context of
your organization's specific needs.

Justin is right about the fact that the 1.0 version number doesn't mean
it's brand new code (though some of it is), and a risk-averse organization
might shun both Artemis 1.0 and ActiveMQ 5.12.x due to their newness while
preferring earlier versions of HornetQ or ActiveMQ (5.10.x, for example).

But to the Artemis community, BN's original question is a good one: what
are Artemis's strengths (current or planned) and why would people who
aren't migrating from HornetQ choose to move to it?  We've all been hearing
that Artemis is the new hotness, but what's hot about the hotness?  The
fact that this question is getting asked at all means you guys are missing
important content from your wiki pages...
On Nov 12, 2015 12:45 PM, "Justin Bertram" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The point I was trying to make was not what you described in your #2
> (although what you said there is true). However, Artemis isn't simply for
> legacy HornetQ users. Numerous modifications and updates have been made to
> Artemis to make migration for ActiveMQ 5.x users smoother (although much
> work is still to be done).
>
> My point was that just because Artemis 1.0 was released in June you
> shouldn't necessarily consider it a risk to adopt since it is largely based
> on code that's baked in a (non-Apache) community for the better part of 6
> years now.
>
> As far as integration goes, both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis are
> multi-protocol brokers so depending on what protocol you want to use will
> determine, in large part, how you integrate. Artemis supports JMS 1.0, 1.1,
> & 2.0 and well as STOMP 1.0 & 1.1, AMQP 1.0, and has initial support for
> OpenWire (the ActiveMQ 5.x protocol).
>
> You asked about Fuse, but Fuse isn't an Apache project so I think you'd be
> better off asking those guys on their own lists.
>
>
> Justin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BN" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:35:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Difference between ActiveMQ vs Apache ActiveMQ Artemis
>
> Thanks Gents for the posts.
> From what I gather are two points
> 1. If an organization is risk averse then they should stick to ActiveMQ
> 2. Artemis code base comes from HornetQ and so Artemis would be a natural
> transition for  people who are comfortable or have previous experience
> working with HornetQ.
>
> I have one last question and that is the role of FUSE.
>
> 1. What are the standard techniques of integrating your Java code with
> ActiveMQ?
> 2. I know Fuse is part of JBoss EAP 7.x and with introduction of Fuse will
> the access to ActiveMQ be changed?
>
> Thanks once again for all the support.
>
> Regards
> BN
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-ActiveMQ-vs-Apache-ActiveMQ-Artemis-tp4703828p4703916.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>