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

clebertsuconic
How to bootstrap this.. who will make the initial import?

From my understanding we need the repository created before we can have
access for it.

We are moving our attention towards the new repository gradually. Having it
created will help us speed up the process.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +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
> >
>



--
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

Hadrian Zbarcea
Do we want a separate repository (my preference) or a branch in the
current one?
For the former case, I think infra@ needs to create the repo, then we
could import it.

Can we reach a lazy consensus, do we need/want a formal vote on this?
Hadrian


On 10/10/2014 10:04 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:

> How to bootstrap this.. who will make the initial import?
>
>  From my understanding we need the repository created before we can have
> access for it.
>
> We are moving our attention towards the new repository gradually. Having it
> created will help us speed up the process.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +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
>>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

tabish121@gmail.com
+1 for a separate repository.

On 10/10/2014 10:16 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:

> Do we want a separate repository (my preference) or a branch in the
> current one?
> For the former case, I think infra@ needs to create the repo, then we
> could import it.
>
> Can we reach a lazy consensus, do we need/want a formal vote on this?
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 10/10/2014 10:04 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> How to bootstrap this.. who will make the initial import?
>>
>>  From my understanding we need the repository created before we can have
>> access for it.
>>
>> We are moving our attention towards the new repository gradually.
>> Having it
>> created will help us speed up the process.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +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
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
[hidden email] | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
I'm +1 for a separate repo as long as it's git... we can merge the
repositories later if you decide so with a simple git push command.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Do we want a separate repository (my preference) or a branch in the
> current one?
> For the former case, I think infra@ needs to create the repo, then we
> could import it.
>
> Can we reach a lazy consensus, do we need/want a formal vote on this?
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 10/10/2014 10:04 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> How to bootstrap this.. who will make the initial import?
>>
>>  From my understanding we need the repository created before we can have
>> access for it.
>>
>> We are moving our attention towards the new repository gradually. Having
>> it
>> created will help us speed up the process.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  +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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>


--
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

jbonofre
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
+1 for separate repo. It makes sense.

Regards
JB


-------- Original message --------
From: Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
Date:10/10/2014  16:20  (GMT+01:00)
To: [hidden email]
Cc:  
Subject: Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

I'm +1 for a separate repo as long as it's git... we can merge the
repositories later if you decide so with a simple git push command.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Do we want a separate repository (my preference) or a branch in the
> current one?
> For the former case, I think infra@ needs to create the repo, then we
> could import it.
>
> Can we reach a lazy consensus, do we need/want a formal vote on this?
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 10/10/2014 10:04 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> How to bootstrap this.. who will make the initial import?
>>
>>  From my understanding we need the repository created before we can have
>> access for it.
>>
>> We are moving our attention towards the new repository gradually. Having
>> it
>> created will help us speed up the process.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  +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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>


--
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
I feel like someone at the first day on a new job here :) (Where's the
coffee place?.. where's the bathroom?  :) )


Is there anyone from infra who can help us setup that? I will need some
help from any veterans here on finding the right person or mail list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

tabish121@gmail.com
On 10/10/2014 11:08 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> I feel like someone at the first day on a new job here :) (Where's the
> coffee place?.. where's the bathroom?  :) )
>
>
> Is there anyone from infra who can help us setup that? I will need some
> help from any veterans here on finding the right person or mail list
>
Creation of new repo, wiki, or other project resource would be done by a
PMC member making a request to Apache Infra via a new INFRA Jira issue.  
First there needs to be consensus from the team.

--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
[hidden email] | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
> First there needs to be consensus from the team.

Got it.. I thought we already had consensus ... I will be in wait mode here.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/10/2014 11:08 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> I feel like someone at the first day on a new job here :) (Where's the
>> coffee place?.. where's the bathroom?  :) )
>>
>>
>> Is there anyone from infra who can help us setup that? I will need some
>> help from any veterans here on finding the right person or mail list
>>
>>  Creation of new repo, wiki, or other project resource would be done by a
> PMC member making a request to Apache Infra via a new INFRA Jira issue.
> First there needs to be consensus from the team.
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

ceposta
+1 separate repo...

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > First there needs to be consensus from the team.
>
> Got it.. I thought we already had consensus ... I will be in wait mode
> here.
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 10/10/2014 11:08 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> >
> >> I feel like someone at the first day on a new job here :) (Where's the
> >> coffee place?.. where's the bathroom?  :) )
> >>
> >>
> >> Is there anyone from infra who can help us setup that? I will need some
> >> help from any veterans here on finding the right person or mail list
> >>
> >>  Creation of new repo, wiki, or other project resource would be done by
> a
> > PMC member making a request to Apache Infra via a new INFRA Jira issue.
> > First there needs to be consensus from the team.
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> > Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> > [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
> > skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>



--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
http://fabric8.io
twitter: @christianposta
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

Andy Taylor
+1 for a separate repo.

On 10/10/14 20:40, Christian Posta wrote:

> +1 separate repo...
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>> First there needs to be consensus from the team.
>> Got it.. I thought we already had consensus ... I will be in wait mode
>> here.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2014 11:08 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel like someone at the first day on a new job here :) (Where's the
>>>> coffee place?.. where's the bathroom?  :) )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there anyone from infra who can help us setup that? I will need some
>>>> help from any veterans here on finding the right person or mail list
>>>>
>>>>   Creation of new repo, wiki, or other project resource would be done by
>> a
>>> PMC member making a request to Apache Infra via a new INFRA Jira issue.
>>> First there needs to be consensus from the team.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Bish
>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>>> [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

gtully
In reply to this post by gtully
With regard to the ip-clearance document[1]. A little update.

For the Copyright section:

 - Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.

On September 5 we got confirmation of the CCLA with the hornetq code
grant. It looks complete to me so we can record that date.

- Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
updated to reflect the new ASF copyright.
  That is still a work in progress - the docs need a license header.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-43

For the Verify distribution rights section:
  - Check that all active committers have a signed CLA on record.

Today, I verified all are present in the activemq group,
http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
    and none are in italics - so all have an icla on record

- Remind active committers that they are responsible for ensuring that
a Corporate CLA is recorded if such is required to authorize their
contributions under their individual CLA.
 I verified this is present in the code grant via the Corporate CLA.
Each is named out explicitly. They got a reminder of their
contribution obligations in the invite to commit.

So we can enter today's date for both of those.

The last two are still a work in progress to be complete before the
first release. The current blocker is getting an apache licensed jms
2.0 dependency.

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


On 24 September 2014 at 12:08, 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

John D. Ament-2
I believe for the committer list, you need to check the source location for
ICLAs as well:

https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/graphs/contributors

John

On Thu Dec 18 2014 at 8:33:40 AM Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> With regard to the ip-clearance document[1]. A little update.
>
> For the Copyright section:
>
>  - Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.
>
> On September 5 we got confirmation of the CCLA with the hornetq code
> grant. It looks complete to me so we can record that date.
>
> - Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
> updated to reflect the new ASF copyright.
>   That is still a work in progress - the docs need a license header.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-43
>
> For the Verify distribution rights section:
>   - Check that all active committers have a signed CLA on record.
>
> Today, I verified all are present in the activemq group,
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
>     and none are in italics - so all have an icla on record
>
> - Remind active committers that they are responsible for ensuring that
> a Corporate CLA is recorded if such is required to authorize their
> contributions under their individual CLA.
>  I verified this is present in the code grant via the Corporate CLA.
> Each is named out explicitly. They got a reminder of their
> contribution obligations in the invite to commit.
>
> So we can enter today's date for both of those.
>
> The last two are still a work in progress to be complete before the
> first release. The current blocker is getting an apache licensed jms
> 2.0 dependency.
>
>  [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>
>
> On 24 September 2014 at 12:08, 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ

clebertsuconic
The Corporate CLA signed by Red Hat takes care of the historical
commits and all the active committers have ICLA in place with apache.
If you see anything not covered by the process please let us know.. or
you could even talk to Apache Legal.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:47 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I believe for the committer list, you need to check the source location for
> ICLAs as well:
>
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/graphs/contributors
>
> John
>
> On Thu Dec 18 2014 at 8:33:40 AM Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> With regard to the ip-clearance document[1]. A little update.
>>
>> For the Copyright section:
>>
>>  - Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.
>>
>> On September 5 we got confirmation of the CCLA with the hornetq code
>> grant. It looks complete to me so we can record that date.
>>
>> - Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
>> updated to reflect the new ASF copyright.
>>   That is still a work in progress - the docs need a license header.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6-43
>>
>> For the Verify distribution rights section:
>>   - Check that all active committers have a signed CLA on record.
>>
>> Today, I verified all are present in the activemq group,
>> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
>>     and none are in italics - so all have an icla on record
>>
>> - Remind active committers that they are responsible for ensuring that
>> a Corporate CLA is recorded if such is required to authorize their
>> contributions under their individual CLA.
>>  I verified this is present in the code grant via the Corporate CLA.
>> Each is named out explicitly. They got a reminder of their
>> contribution obligations in the invite to commit.
>>
>> So we can enter today's date for both of those.
>>
>> The last two are still a work in progress to be complete before the
>> first release. The current blocker is getting an apache licensed jms
>> 2.0 dependency.
>>
>>  [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>>
>>
>> On 24 September 2014 at 12:08, 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
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
123