Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

Richard Kettelerij
Any progress on this? Just curious.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache projects.
> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>
> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
paperwork that needs to be filled up.

We will have an update soon.



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
> projects.
> > Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
> >
> > One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>



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

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
Meanwhile we are making our technical work. OpenWire is already part of our
master (one of the tasks we would need to have accomplished before we could
make any releases out of the new codebase). And making a lot of progress on
AMQP.


It's just paperwork now..  we will give an update here soon as I said.


On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> wrote:

>
>
>
> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>
> We will have an update soon.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
>> projects.
>> > Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>> >
>> > One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> >
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
>> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>



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

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

rajdavies
It might be better to hold off doing to much work a head of time, you want to be build a community of developers around this :)

20 August 2014 16:43
Meanwhile we are making our technical work. OpenWire is already part of our
master (one of the tasks we would need to have accomplished before we could
make any releases out of the new codebase). And making a lot of progress on
AMQP.


It's just paperwork now..  we will give an update here soon as I said.


On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
wrote:

We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
paperwork that needs to be filled up.

We will have an update soon.



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
[hidden email]> wrote:

Any progress on this? Just curious.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath [hidden email]
wrote:

Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
projects.
Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.

One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ



--
View this message in context:

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com




20 August 2014 16:42
We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
paperwork that needs to be filled up.

We will have an update soon.



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <



16 August 2014 09:38
Any progress on this? Just curious.


31 July 2014 10:18
Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache projects.
Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.

One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ



--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
8 July 2014 15:31
Hi all,

My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS broker
(http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning
phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
ActiveMQ community.

There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to join
forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
there.

My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a basis for
the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current limitations.
Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance
and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already supports
STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could
be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of
HornetQ.

Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a donation of
the HornetQ codebase.

Thanks and best regards,
Clebert.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

jbonofre
I agree with Rob there.

Regards
JB

On 08/20/2014 05:49 PM, Rob Davies wrote:

> It might be better to hold off doing to much work a head of time, you
> want to be build a community of developers around this :)
>
>> Clebert Suconic <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> 20 August 2014 16:43
>> Meanwhile we are making our technical work. OpenWire is already part of our
>> master (one of the tasks we would need to have accomplished before we could
>> make any releases out of the new codebase). And making a lot of progress on
>> AMQP.
>>
>>
>> It's just paperwork now..  we will give an update here soon as I said.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
>>> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>>>
>>> We will have an update soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath<[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
>>>> projects.
>>>>> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>>>>>
>>>>> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Clebert Suconic <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> 20 August 2014 16:42
>> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
>> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>>
>> We will have an update soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Kettelerij <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> 16 August 2014 09:38
>> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>>
>>
>> sirinath <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> 31 July 2014 10:18
>> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
>> projects.
>> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>>
>> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> Clebert Suconic <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> 8 July 2014 15:31
>> Hi all,
>>
>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS
>> broker
>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning
>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
>> ActiveMQ community.
>>
>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us
>> to join
>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
>> there.
>>
>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a
>> basis for
>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
>> limitations.
>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance
>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already
>> supports
>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could
>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of
>> HornetQ.
>>
>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a
>> donation of
>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Clebert.
>>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

gtully
In reply to this post by chirino
I see #1 and #2 are complete.

on #3

- there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have the
apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
add licenses as appropriate before a release.
 -- otherwise we are in the clear.

on #4

 - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from jboss
under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
counterparts

 - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
 -- We will need to make a functional version without those extension
points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.

- there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
-- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into a
plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
file.

- there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop if
necessary.

In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
acceptance.

Gary.

[1]https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt


On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Clebert ,
>
> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>
> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that currently
> exists on github master (commit
> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>
> Things we still need to do:
>
> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have CLAs filed.
> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right
> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is
> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>
> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Clebert,
>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my perspective
>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of
>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing an import.
>>>
>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>
>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community into
>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and bring
>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to create
>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer
>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me when
>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has JMS
>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>
>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and
>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building projects
>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering porting
>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based but
>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo,
>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS broker
>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning
>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to join
>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a basis for
>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current limitations.
>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance
>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already supports
>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could
>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of
>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a donation of
>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://redhat.com
>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino



--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

gtully
I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
'Verify distribution rights' section.

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html

On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>
> on #3
>
> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have the
> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>  -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>
> on #4
>
>  - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from jboss
> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
> counterparts
>
>  - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>  -- We will need to make a functional version without those extension
> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>
> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into a
> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
> file.
>
> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop if
> necessary.
>
> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
> acceptance.
>
> Gary.
>
> [1]https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
>
>
> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Clebert ,
>>
>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>>
>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that currently
>> exists on github master (commit
>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>>
>> Things we still need to do:
>>
>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have CLAs filed.
>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right
>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is
>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>>
>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my perspective
>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of
>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>>
>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing an import.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community into
>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and bring
>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to create
>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer
>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me when
>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has JMS
>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>>
>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and
>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building projects
>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering porting
>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based but
>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo,
>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS broker
>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning
>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to join
>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a basis for
>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current limitations.
>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance
>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already supports
>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could
>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of
>>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a donation of
>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com



--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

chirino
That sounds good to me.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>
> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>>
>> on #3
>>
>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have the
>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>>  -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>>
>> on #4
>>
>>  - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from jboss
>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
>> counterparts
>>
>>  - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>>  -- We will need to make a functional version without those extension
>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>>
>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into a
>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
>> file.
>>
>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop if
>> necessary.
>>
>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
>> acceptance.
>>
>> Gary.
>>
>> [1]https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
>>
>>
>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Clebert ,
>>>
>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>>>
>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that currently
>>> exists on github master (commit
>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>>>
>>> Things we still need to do:
>>>
>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have CLAs filed.
>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right
>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is
>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>>>
>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my perspective
>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of
>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing an import.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community into
>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and bring
>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to create
>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer
>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me when
>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has JMS
>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and
>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building projects
>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering porting
>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based but
>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo,
>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS broker
>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning
>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to join
>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a basis for
>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current limitations.
>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance
>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already supports
>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could
>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of
>>>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a donation of
>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://redhat.com
>> http://blog.garytully.com
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
+1

I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of the
work after acceptance and before releasing.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> That sounds good to me.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> > clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
> > and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
> > 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> >
> > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
> >
> > On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
> >>
> >> on #3
> >>
> >> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have the
> >> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
> >> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
> >>  -- otherwise we are in the clear.
> >>
> >> on #4
> >>
> >>  - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from jboss
> >> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
> >> counterparts
> >>
> >>  - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
> >> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> >> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
> >>  -- We will need to make a functional version without those extension
> >> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
> >>
> >> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> >> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into a
> >> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
> >> file.
> >>
> >> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop if
> >> necessary.
> >>
> >> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
> >> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
> >> acceptance.
> >>
> >> Gary.
> >>
> >> [1]
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Hi Clebert ,
> >>>
> >>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
> >>>
> >>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that currently
> >>> exists on github master (commit
> >>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
> >>>
> >>> Things we still need to do:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> >>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have CLAs
> filed.
> >>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> >>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right
> >>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> >>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is
> >>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> >>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
> >>>
> >>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
> >>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
> perspective
> >>>>> we would love to have the code base.
> >>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of
> >>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing an
> import.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community into
> >>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and bring
> >>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to create
> >>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer
> >>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me when
> >>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has JMS
> >>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
> >>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
> >>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and
> >>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
> projects
> >>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering porting
> >>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based but
> >>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo,
> >>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ
> JMS broker
> >>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the
> planning
> >>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking
> about
> >>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely
> with the
> >>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers
> today and
> >>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for
> us to join
> >>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our
> time
> >>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
> community of
> >>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate
> our work
> >>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a
> basis for
> >>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
> limitations.
> >>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
> performance
> >>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already
> supports
> >>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
> straight-forward and
> >>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the
> goal could
> >>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
> performance of
> >>>>>>> HornetQ.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
> >>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a
> donation of
> >>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> >>>>>>> Clebert.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Hiram Chirino
> >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://redhat.com
> >> http://blog.garytully.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://redhat.com
> > http://blog.garytully.com
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>



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

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

gtully
the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
work.
The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
guys
maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
help with the cleanup.

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E

On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of the
> work after acceptance and before releasing.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > That sounds good to me.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> > > clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
> > > and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
> > > 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> > >
> > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
> > >
> > > On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
> > >>
> > >> on #3
> > >>
> > >> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have the
> > >> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
> > >> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
> > >>  -- otherwise we are in the clear.
> > >>
> > >> on #4
> > >>
> > >>  - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from jboss
> > >> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
> > >> counterparts
> > >>
> > >>  - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
> > >> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> > >> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
> > >>  -- We will need to make a functional version without those extension
> > >> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
> > >>
> > >> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> > >> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into a
> > >> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
> > >> file.
> > >>
> > >> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop if
> > >> necessary.
> > >>
> > >> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
> > >> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
> > >> acceptance.
> > >>
> > >> Gary.
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> >
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>> Hi Clebert ,
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
> > >>>
> > >>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
> currently
> > >>> exists on github master (commit
> > >>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
> > >>>
> > >>> Things we still need to do:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> > >>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have CLAs
> > filed.
> > >>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> > >>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right
> > >>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> > >>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is
> > >>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> > >>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
> > >>>
> > >>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
> > >>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Clebert,
> > >>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
> > perspective
> > >>>>> we would love to have the code base.
> > >>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of
> > >>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing
> an
> > import.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community into
> > >>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and bring
> > >>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
> create
> > >>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer
> > >>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
> when
> > >>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has
> JMS
> > >>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
> > >>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
> > >>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and
> > >>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
> > projects
> > >>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering porting
> > >>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based
> but
> > >>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo,
> > >>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> :)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ
> > JMS broker
> > >>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in
> the
> > planning
> > >>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking
> > about
> > >>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely
> > with the
> > >>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers
> > today and
> > >>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for
> > us to join
> > >>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our
> > time
> > >>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
> > community of
> > >>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate
> > our work
> > >>>>>>> there.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide
> a
> > basis for
> > >>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
> > limitations.
> > >>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
> > performance
> > >>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
> already
> > supports
> > >>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
> > straight-forward and
> > >>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the
> > goal could
> > >>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
> > performance of
> > >>>>>>> HornetQ.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
> just
> > >>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a
> > donation of
> > >>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> > >>>>>>> Clebert.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> http://redhat.com
> > >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> http://redhat.com
> > >> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://redhat.com
> > > http://blog.garytully.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hiram Chirino
> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we have
before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
integration?

Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can just
clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents. (e.g.
the jms API and other things like that).

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
> work.
> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
> guys
> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
> help with the cleanup.
>
> [1]
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
>
> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of the
> > work after acceptance and before releasing.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> > > > clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
> > > > and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
> > > > 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
> > > >
> > > > On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
> > > >>
> > > >> on #3
> > > >>
> > > >> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have
> the
> > > >> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
> > > >> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
> > > >>  -- otherwise we are in the clear.
> > > >>
> > > >> on #4
> > > >>
> > > >>  - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
> jboss
> > > >> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
> > > >> counterparts
> > > >>
> > > >>  - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
> > > >> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> > > >> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
> > > >>  -- We will need to make a functional version without those
> extension
> > > >> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
> > > >>
> > > >> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> > > >> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into
> a
> > > >> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
> > > >> file.
> > > >>
> > > >> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop
> if
> > > >> necessary.
> > > >>
> > > >> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
> > > >> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
> > > >> acceptance.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gary.
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>> Hi Clebert ,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
> > currently
> > > >>> exists on github master (commit
> > > >>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Things we still need to do:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> > > >>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
> CLAs
> > > filed.
> > > >>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> > > >>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
> right
> > > >>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> > > >>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project
> is
> > > >>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> > > >>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
> > > >>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi Clebert,
> > > >>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
> > > perspective
> > > >>>>> we would love to have the code base.
> > > >>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths
> of
> > > >>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing
> > an
> > > import.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
> into
> > > >>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
> bring
> > > >>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
> > create
> > > >>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
> developer
> > > >>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
> > when
> > > >>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has
> > JMS
> > > >>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
> > > >>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
> > > >>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
> and
> > > >>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
> > > projects
> > > >>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
> porting
> > > >>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based
> > but
> > > >>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
> Apollo,
> > > >>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> :)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
> > > >>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
> HornetQ
> > > JMS broker
> > > >>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in
> > the
> > > planning
> > > >>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
> thinking
> > > about
> > > >>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely
> > > with the
> > > >>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
> brokers
> > > today and
> > > >>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
> for
> > > us to join
> > > >>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
> our
> > > time
> > > >>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
> > > community of
> > > >>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
> consolidate
> > > our work
> > > >>>>>>> there.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
> provide
> > a
> > > basis for
> > > >>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
> > > limitations.
> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
> > > performance
> > > >>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
> > already
> > > supports
> > > >>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
> > > straight-forward and
> > > >>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the
> > > goal could
> > > >>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
> > > performance of
> > > >>>>>>> HornetQ.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
> > just
> > > >>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about
> a
> > > donation of
> > > >>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> > > >>>>>>> Clebert.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > > >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> http://redhat.com
> > > >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Hiram Chirino
> > > >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > >>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Hiram Chirino
> > > >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > >>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> http://redhat.com
> > > >> http://blog.garytully.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://redhat.com
> > > > http://blog.garytully.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Hiram Chirino
> > > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >
>



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

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

chirino
Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we have
> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
> integration?
>
> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can just
> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents. (e.g.
> the jms API and other things like that).
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
>> work.
>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
>> guys
>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
>> help with the cleanup.
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
>>
>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of the
>> > work after acceptance and before releasing.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > That sounds good to me.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
>> > > > clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
>> > > > and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
>> > > > 'Verify distribution rights' section.
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>> > > >
>> > > > On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> on #3
>> > > >>
>> > > >> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have
>> the
>> > > >> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
>> > > >> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>> > > >>  -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> on #4
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
>> jboss
>> > > >> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
>> > > >> counterparts
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
>> > > >> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
>> > > >> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>> > > >>  -- We will need to make a functional version without those
>> extension
>> > > >> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
>> > > >> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into
>> a
>> > > >> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
>> > > >> file.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop
>> if
>> > > >> necessary.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
>> > > >> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
>> > > >> acceptance.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Gary.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> [1]
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >>> Hi Clebert ,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>> >
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
>> > currently
>> > > >>> exists on github master (commit
>> > > >>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Things we still need to do:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>> > > >>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
>> CLAs
>> > > filed.
>> > > >>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>> > > >>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
>> right
>> > > >>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>> > > >>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project
>> is
>> > > >>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>> > > >>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
>> > > >>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >>>>> Hi Clebert,
>> > > >>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
>> > > perspective
>> > > >>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>> > > >>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths
>> of
>> > > >>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing
>> > an
>> > > import.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
>> into
>> > > >>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
>> bring
>> > > >>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
>> > create
>> > > >>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
>> developer
>> > > >>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
>> > when
>> > > >>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has
>> > JMS
>> > > >>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
>> > > >>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
>> > > >>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
>> and
>> > > >>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
>> > > projects
>> > > >>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
>> porting
>> > > >>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based
>> > but
>> > > >>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
>> Apollo,
>> > > >>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> :)
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>> > > >>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>> Hi all,
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
>> HornetQ
>> > > JMS broker
>> > > >>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in
>> > the
>> > > planning
>> > > >>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
>> thinking
>> > > about
>> > > >>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely
>> > > with the
>> > > >>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
>> brokers
>> > > today and
>> > > >>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
>> for
>> > > us to join
>> > > >>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
>> our
>> > > time
>> > > >>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
>> > > community of
>> > > >>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
>> consolidate
>> > > our work
>> > > >>>>>>> there.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
>> provide
>> > a
>> > > basis for
>> > > >>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
>> > > limitations.
>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
>> > > performance
>> > > >>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
>> > already
>> > > supports
>> > > >>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
>> > > straight-forward and
>> > > >>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the
>> > > goal could
>> > > >>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
>> > > performance of
>> > > >>>>>>> HornetQ.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
>> > just
>> > > >>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about
>> a
>> > > donation of
>> > > >>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>> > > >>>>>>> Clebert.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> --
>> > > >>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> --
>> > > >>>>> http://redhat.com
>> > > >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> --
>> > > >>>> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> http://redhat.com
>> > > >> http://blog.garytully.com
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > http://redhat.com
>> > > > http://blog.garytully.com
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Hiram Chirino
>> > > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

Hadrian Zbarcea
I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
(apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard
to differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it
refer to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo
is no longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for
hornet's adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against
(re)using the apollo codename.

Just my $0.02,
Hadrian


On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:

> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we have
>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
>> integration?
>>
>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can just
>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents. (e.g.
>> the jms API and other things like that).
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
>>> work.
>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
>>> guys
>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
>>>
>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of the
>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
>>>>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on #3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have
>>> the
>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
>>>>>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>>>>>>>   -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on #4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
>>> jboss
>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
>>>>>>> counterparts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>>>>>>>   -- We will need to make a functional version without those
>>> extension
>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into
>>> a
>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop
>>> if
>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
>>>>>>> acceptance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>>>>>>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
>>>> currently
>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
>>> CLAs
>>>>> filed.
>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
>>> right
>>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project
>>> is
>>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
>>>>>>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing
>>>> an
>>>>> import.
>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
>>> bring
>>>>>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
>>> developer
>>>>>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has
>>>> JMS
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
>>>>>>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
>>>>>>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
>>> porting
>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based
>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
>>> Apollo,
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
>>> HornetQ
>>>>> JMS broker
>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in
>>>> the
>>>>> planning
>>>>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
>>> thinking
>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely
>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
>>> brokers
>>>>> today and
>>>>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
>>> for
>>>>> us to join
>>>>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
>>> our
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
>>>>> community of
>>>>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
>>> consolidate
>>>>> our work
>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
>>> provide
>>>> a
>>>>> basis for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
>>>>> limitations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
>>>> already
>>>>> supports
>>>>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
>>>>> straight-forward and
>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the
>>>>> goal could
>>>>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
>>>>> performance of
>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about
>>> a
>>>>> donation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

chirino
Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira.  What should we call it? Keep
it hornetq?  Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
> (apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard to
> differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it refer
> to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo is no
> longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for hornet's
> adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using the
> apollo codename.
>
> Just my $0.02,
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
>> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
>> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we have
>>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
>>> integration?
>>>
>>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can just
>>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents.
>>> (e.g.
>>> the jms API and other things like that).
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>> clearance
>>>> work.
>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
>>>> HQ
>>>> guys
>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
>>>>
>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of
>>>>> the
>>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
>>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
>>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the
>>>>>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on #3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can
>>>>>>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>>>>>>>>   -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on #4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
>>>>
>>>> jboss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo
>>>>>>>> counterparts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
>>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
>>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>>>>>>>>   -- We will need to make a functional version without those
>>>>
>>>> extension
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
>>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every
>>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop
>>>>
>>>> if
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
>>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant
>>>>>>>> acceptance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
>>>>>
>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
>>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
>>>>
>>>> CLAs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> filed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
>>>>
>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project
>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and
>>>>>>>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths
>>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing
>>>>>
>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>> import.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
>>>>
>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
>>>>
>>>> bring
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
>>>>>
>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
>>>>
>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
>>>>>
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has
>>>>>
>>>>> JMS
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation
>>>>>>>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
>>>>>>
>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
>>>>
>>>> porting
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based
>>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
>>>>
>>>> Apollo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
>>>>
>>>> HornetQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JMS broker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> planning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
>>>>
>>>> thinking
>>>>>>
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
>>>>
>>>> brokers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> today and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
>>>>
>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> us to join
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
>>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
>>>>>>
>>>>>> community of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
>>>>
>>>> consolidate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> our work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
>>>>
>>>> provide
>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> basis for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
>>>>>>
>>>>>> limitations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good
>>>>>>
>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
>>>>>
>>>>> already
>>>>>>
>>>>>> supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> straight-forward and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> goal could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> performance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
>>>>>
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> donation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

gtully
I think we should morph the smarts of apollo into the hornet donation and
keep the product of the two as apollo.  So hornetq helps apollo evolve into
next gen activemq.
On 6 Oct 2014 20:14, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira.  What should we call it? Keep
> it hornetq?  Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
> > (apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard to
> > differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it refer
> > to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo is no
> > longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for hornet's
> > adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using the
> > apollo codename.
> >
> > Just my $0.02,
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
> >> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
> >> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we
> have
> >>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
> >>> integration?
> >>>
> >>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can
> just
> >>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents.
> >>> (e.g.
> >>> the jms API and other things like that).
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> >>>> clearance
> >>>> work.
> >>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
> >>>> HQ
> >>>> guys
> >>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> knowledgeable
> >>>> help with the cleanup.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
> >>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> >>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
> >>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing
> the
> >>>>>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> on #3
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have
> >>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We
> can
> >>>>>>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
> >>>>>>>>   -- otherwise we are in the clear.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> on #4
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
> >>>>
> >>>> jboss
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the
> geronimo
> >>>>>>>> counterparts
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
> >>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> >>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
> >>>>>>>>   -- We will need to make a functional version without those
> >>>>
> >>>> extension
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> >>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging
> into
> >>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most
> every
> >>>>>>>> file.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can
> drop
> >>>>
> >>>> if
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
> >>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a
> grant
> >>>>>>>> acceptance.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance
> form:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
> >>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> >>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
> >>>>
> >>>> CLAs
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> filed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> >>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
> >>>>
> >>>> right
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> >>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
> project
> >>>>
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> >>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check
> and
> >>>>>>>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> perspective
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
> >>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths
> >>>>
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at
> doing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> an
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> import.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
> >>>>
> >>>> into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
> >>>>
> >>>> bring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
> >>>>
> >>>> developer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
> >>>>>
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ
> has
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JMS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next
> generation
> >>>>>>>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's
> mostly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
> >>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> projects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
> >>>>
> >>>> porting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java
> based
> >>>>>
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
> >>>>
> >>>> Apollo,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
> >>>>
> >>>> HornetQ
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JMS broker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently
> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> planning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
> >>>>
> >>>> thinking
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more
> closely
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
> >>>>
> >>>> brokers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> today and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
> >>>>
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> us to join
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
> >>>>
> >>>> our
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> community of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
> >>>>
> >>>> consolidate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> our work
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
> >>>>
> >>>> provide
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> basis for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the
> current
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> limitations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some
> good
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> performance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
> >>>>>
> >>>>> already
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> supports
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> straight-forward and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially,
> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> goal could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> performance of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
> >>>>>
> >>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel
> about
> >>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> donation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

Richard Kettelerij
In reply to this post by chirino
Or morph HornetQ (and parts of Apollo) into a new branch and call it
ActiveMQ 6 right away. Just my 0.02ct

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira.  What should we call it? Keep
> it hornetq?  Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
> > (apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard to
> > differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it refer
> > to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo is no
> > longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for hornet's
> > adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using the
> > apollo codename.
> >
> > Just my $0.02,
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
> >> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
> >> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we
> have
> >>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
> >>> integration?
> >>>
> >>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can
> just
> >>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents.
> >>> (e.g.
> >>> the jms API and other things like that).
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> >>>> clearance
> >>>> work.
> >>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
> >>>> HQ
> >>>> guys
> >>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> knowledgeable
> >>>> help with the cleanup.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
> >>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> >>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
> >>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing
> the
> >>>>>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> on #3
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have
> >>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We
> can
> >>>>>>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
> >>>>>>>>   -- otherwise we are in the clear.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> on #4
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
> >>>>
> >>>> jboss
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the
> geronimo
> >>>>>>>> counterparts
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
> >>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> >>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
> >>>>>>>>   -- We will need to make a functional version without those
> >>>>
> >>>> extension
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> >>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging
> into
> >>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most
> every
> >>>>>>>> file.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can
> drop
> >>>>
> >>>> if
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
> >>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a
> grant
> >>>>>>>> acceptance.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance
> form:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
> >>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> >>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
> >>>>
> >>>> CLAs
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> filed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> >>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
> >>>>
> >>>> right
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> >>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
> project
> >>>>
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> >>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check
> and
> >>>>>>>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> perspective
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
> >>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths
> >>>>
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at
> doing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> an
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> import.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
> >>>>
> >>>> into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
> >>>>
> >>>> bring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
> >>>>
> >>>> developer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
> >>>>>
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ
> has
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JMS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next
> generation
> >>>>>>>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's
> mostly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
> >>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> projects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
> >>>>
> >>>> porting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java
> based
> >>>>>
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
> >>>>
> >>>> Apollo,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
> >>>>
> >>>> HornetQ
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JMS broker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently
> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> planning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
> >>>>
> >>>> thinking
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more
> closely
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
> >>>>
> >>>> brokers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> today and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
> >>>>
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> us to join
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
> >>>>
> >>>> our
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> community of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
> >>>>
> >>>> consolidate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> our work
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
> >>>>
> >>>> provide
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> basis for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the
> current
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> limitations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some
> good
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> performance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
> >>>>>
> >>>>> already
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> supports
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> straight-forward and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially,
> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> goal could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> performance of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
> >>>>>
> >>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel
> about
> >>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> donation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

gtully
Ok. That is a good option too. Activemq6 is the target so we may as well
set out on that path.

+1 import to activemq6 branch

For package names.
We can use an apollo or activemq6 discriminator to allow co existance with
5.x client jars.
The number 6 seems a little arbitrary so maybe apollo is better?
On 7 Oct 2014 10:00, "Richard Kettelerij" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Or morph HornetQ (and parts of Apollo) into a new branch and call it
> ActiveMQ 6 right away. Just my 0.02ct
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira.  What should we call it? Keep
> > it hornetq?  Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
> > > (apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard
> to
> > > differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it
> refer
> > > to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo is no
> > > longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for hornet's
> > > adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using the
> > > apollo codename.
> > >
> > > Just my $0.02,
> > > Hadrian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
> > >> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
> > >> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
> > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we
> > have
> > >>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
> > >>> integration?
> > >>>
> > >>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can
> > just
> > >>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents.
> > >>> (e.g.
> > >>> the jms API and other things like that).
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> > >>>> clearance
> > >>>> work.
> > >>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are
> the
> > >>>> HQ
> > >>>> guys
> > >>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> > knowledgeable
> > >>>> help with the cleanup.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part
> of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>> <[hidden email]>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]
> >
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> > >>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial
> committers
> > >>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing
> > the
> > >>>>>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> on #3
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not
> have
> > >>>>
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We
> > can
> > >>>>>>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
> > >>>>>>>>   -- otherwise we are in the clear.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> on #4
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>   - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
> > >>>>
> > >>>> jboss
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the
> > geronimo
> > >>>>>>>> counterparts
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>   - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
> > >>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> > >>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
> > >>>>>>>>   -- We will need to make a functional version without those
> > >>>>
> > >>>> extension
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> > >>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging
> > into
> > >>>>
> > >>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most
> > every
> > >>>>>>>> file.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can
> > drop
> > >>>>
> > >>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> necessary.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we
> will
> > >>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a
> > grant
> > >>>>>>>> acceptance.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Gary.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance
> > form:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> currently
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
> > >>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> > >>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
> > >>>>
> > >>>> CLAs
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> filed.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> > >>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
> > >>>>
> > >>>> right
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> > >>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
> > project
> > >>>>
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> > >>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check
> > and
> > >>>>>>>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> > [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> perspective
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative
> strengths
> > >>>>
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at
> > doing
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> an
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> import.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ
> community
> > >>>>
> > >>>> into
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
> > >>>>
> > >>>> bring
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ
> to
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
> > >>>>
> > >>>> developer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking
> me
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ
> > has
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> JMS
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next
> > generation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's
> > mostly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got
> involved
> > >>>>
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> projects
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
> > >>>>
> > >>>> porting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java
> > based
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Apollo,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
> > >>>>
> > >>>> HornetQ
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> JMS broker
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently
> > in
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> planning
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
> > >>>>
> > >>>> thinking
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more
> > closely
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> with the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
> > >>>>
> > >>>> brokers
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> today and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both
> communities
> > >>>>
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> us to join
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than
> spend
> > >>>>
> > >>>> our
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> community of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
> > >>>>
> > >>>> consolidate
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> our work
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
> > >>>>
> > >>>> provide
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> basis for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the
> > current
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> limitations.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some
> > good
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> performance
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> already
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> supports
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> straight-forward and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially,
> > the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> goal could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> performance of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm
> really
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel
> > about
> > >>>>
> > >>>> a
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> donation of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> > >>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> > >>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> > >>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hiram Chirino
> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by Richard Kettelerij
activemq-6 sounds good. It's also consistent with other things that
happened the past (like the transition from smx 3 to 4).

I am not sure if a branch is better or a separate repo. Since we're
already on git, my preference would be the latter.

Hadrian


On 10/07/2014 04:59 AM, Richard Kettelerij wrote:

> Or morph HornetQ (and parts of Apollo) into a new branch and call it
> ActiveMQ 6 right away. Just my 0.02ct
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira.  What should we call it? Keep
>> it hornetq?  Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
>>> (apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard to
>>> differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it refer
>>> to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo is no
>>> longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for hornet's
>>> adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using the
>>> apollo codename.
>>>
>>> Just my $0.02,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
>>>> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
>>>> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we
>> have
>>>>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
>>>>> integration?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can
>> just
>>>>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents.
>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>> the jms API and other things like that).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>>>> clearance
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
>>>>>> HQ
>>>>>> guys
>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
>> knowledgeable
>>>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@...%3E
>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
>>>>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers
>>>>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing
>> the
>>>>>>>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on #3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We
>> can
>>>>>>>>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>>>>>>>>>>    -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on #4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
>>>>>> jboss
>>>>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the
>> geronimo
>>>>>>>>>> counterparts
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
>>>>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
>>>>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>>>>>>>>>>    -- We will need to make a functional version without those
>>>>>> extension
>>>>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
>>>>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging
>> into
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most
>> every
>>>>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can
>> drop
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will
>>>>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a
>> grant
>>>>>>>>>> acceptance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance
>> form:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
>>>>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
>>>>>> CLAs
>>>>>>>> filed.
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>>>>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
>> project
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check
>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at
>> doing
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> import.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
>>>>>> bring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ
>> has
>>>>>>> JMS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next
>> generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's
>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
>>>>>> porting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java
>> based
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
>>>>>> Apollo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
>>>>>> HornetQ
>>>>>>>> JMS broker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently
>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> planning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more
>> closely
>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
>>>>>> brokers
>>>>>>>> today and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> us to join
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
>>>>>>>> community of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
>>>>>> consolidate
>>>>>>>> our work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> basis for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the
>> current
>>>>>>>> limitations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some
>> good
>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
>>>>>>>> straight-forward and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially,
>> the
>>>>>>>> goal could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
>>>>>>>> performance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel
>> about
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> donation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
+1

I like the activemq6 idea better too

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> activemq-6 sounds good. It's also consistent with other things that
> happened the past (like the transition from smx 3 to 4).
>
> I am not sure if a branch is better or a separate repo. Since we're
> already on git, my preference would be the latter.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 10/07/2014 04:59 AM, Richard Kettelerij wrote:
>
>> Or morph HornetQ (and parts of Apollo) into a new branch and call it
>> ActiveMQ 6 right away. Just my 0.02ct
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira.  What should we call it? Keep
>>> it hornetq?  Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
>>>> (apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard
>>>> to
>>>> differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it
>>>> refer
>>>> to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo is no
>>>> longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for hornet's
>>>> adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using the
>>>> apollo codename.
>>>>
>>>> Just my $0.02,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
>>>>> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
>>>>> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we
>>>>>>
>>>>> have
>>>
>>>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
>>>>>> integration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can
>>>>>>
>>>>> just
>>>
>>>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents.
>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>> the jms API and other things like that).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>>>>> clearance
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> HQ
>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> knowledgeable
>>>
>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
>>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
>>> [hidden email]%3E
>>>
>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
>>>>>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial
>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on #3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>
>>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>    -- otherwise we are in the clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on #4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jboss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> geronimo
>>>
>>>> counterparts
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss
>>>>>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
>>>>>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
>>>>>>>>>>>    -- We will need to make a functional version without those
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> extension
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
>>>>>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>
>>>> file.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>
>>>> if
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> grant
>>>
>>>> acceptance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/
>>> distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> form:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/
>>> content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
>>>
>>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
>>>>>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CLAs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> filed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strengths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> import.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bring
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>
>>>> JMS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generation
>>>
>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>
>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> porting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>
>>>> but
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JMS broker
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> planning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely
>>>
>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brokers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> today and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> us to join
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consolidate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> basis for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>
>>>> limitations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>
>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> supports
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>> goal could
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> donation of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>


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

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

dejanb
+1 for activemq6 as well.

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

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> I like the activemq6 idea better too
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > activemq-6 sounds good. It's also consistent with other things that
> > happened the past (like the transition from smx 3 to 4).
> >
> > I am not sure if a branch is better or a separate repo. Since we're
> > already on git, my preference would be the latter.
> >
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On 10/07/2014 04:59 AM, Richard Kettelerij wrote:
> >
> >> Or morph HornetQ (and parts of Apollo) into a new branch and call it
> >> ActiveMQ 6 right away. Just my 0.02ct
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Well, we can put it in a new repo/jira.  What should we call it? Keep
> >>> it hornetq?  Is the hornetq brand also being donated to the ASF?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I gave this quite a bit of thought. I suspect using the same code name
> >>>> (apollo) would create a lot of undesired confusion. First it'd be hard
> >>>> to
> >>>> differentiate between the issue/bug reports. Which "apollo" does it
> >>>> refer
> >>>> to? Second, even more dangerous, the word will go out that apollo is
> no
> >>>> longer maintained with potentially negative consequences for hornet's
> >>>> adoption. More I think about it, stronger I feel against (re)using the
> >>>> apollo codename.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just my $0.02,
> >>>> Hadrian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/03/2014 01:56 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yeah that will work.  Perhaps it would be easiest to import the code
> >>>>> into a branch in the apollo git branch.  That way we can continue to
> >>>>> use apollo codename as the ActiveMQ 'next gen' strategy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Can't we import the repo as is, and cleanup whatever dependencies we
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> have
> >>>
> >>>> before a release? There will be a lot of work anyways on making the
> >>>>>> integration?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Some of these things are external dependencies through maven. We can
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> just
> >>>
> >>>> clean up anything we have there that already have apache equivalents.
> >>>>>> (e.g.
> >>>>>> the jms API and other things like that).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> >>>>>>> clearance
> >>>>>>> work.
> >>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> HQ
> >>>>>>> guys
> >>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> knowledgeable
> >>>
> >>>> help with the cleanup.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
> >>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
> >>> [hidden email]%3E
> >>>
> >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  +1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I knew we would have to adapt our dependencies..that will be part
> of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> work after acceptance and before releasing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  That sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip
> >>>>>>>>>> clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial
> >>>>>>>>>> committers
> >>>>>>>>>> and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before
> completing
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> 'Verify distribution rights' section.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I see #1 and #2 are complete.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> on #3
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not
> >>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>
> >>>> add licenses as appropriate before a release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>    -- otherwise we are in the clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> on #4
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>    - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc)
> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> jboss
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> geronimo
> >>>
> >>>> counterparts
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>    - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of
> jboss
> >>>>>>>>>>> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and
> >>>>>>>>>>> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL
> >>>>>>>>>>>    -- We will need to make a functional version without those
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> extension
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL)
> >>>>>>>>>>> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> into
> >>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>
> >>>> file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> drop
> >>>
> >>>> if
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we
> >>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> grant
> >>>
> >>>> acceptance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Gary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/
> >>> distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Clebert ,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> form:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/
> >>> content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml
> >>>
> >>>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> exists on github master (commit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Things we still need to do:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they
> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> CLAs
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> filed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> right
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>
> >>>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> we would love to have the code base.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> strengths
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
> >>>
> >>>> an
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> import.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds very interesting!  Bringing the HornetQ
> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me.  We could collaborate and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bring
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> community at the same time.  Lots of folks have been asking me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>
> >>>> JMS
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generation
> >>>
> >>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
> >>>
> >>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> is more about community than code.  I have been pondering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> porting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
> >>>
> >>>> but
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apollo,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HornetQ
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> JMS broker
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> planning
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely
> >>>
> >>>> with the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ community.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brokers
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> today and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> us to join
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consolidate
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> our work
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> basis for
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
> >>>
> >>>> limitations.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>
> >>>> performance
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> supports
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> goal could
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> HornetQ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> donation of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Hiram Chirino
> >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
123