[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

clebertsuconic
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Johan Edstrom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> -1 Non binding for the same reasons.

Rob has recast his vote for +1, considering that we won't release 6.x
until migration documentation is clear for migration... look the
following up emails.

we are just talking about having a roadmap for 6.x.. we are not releasing 6.x.



>
>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> -1
>>
>> agree with Rob
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
>>> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>>>
>>>> linked here for convenience :
>>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>
>>>> [+1] -  agree
>>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>>>
>>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>>>
>>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>



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

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
-1 to making Artemis ActiveMQ 6 now.

Art was pretty much dead on and I fully agree with Hadrian.

Hadrian said it so I won't get into that level of detail, but until we see
Artemis truly as a successor both due to adoption and workability with AMQ
5, I am not ready to see it change.

I do want to see that change happen at some point, but it needs to be ready
on many counts.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by MichaelAndrePearce
Mike,

While I agree with most of what you state, I fail to see the relevance.

When a user upgrades from project FOO version N to FOO version N+1,
there is an expectation of reasonable backwards compatibility. Version
N+1 may or may not be a complete rewrite, but rules of engagement are
clear. The intent for Artemis to become ActiveMQ 6 was already stated
ages ago.

Since RH was mentioned there is ok to completely replace the guts of a
project by keeping its name and bump the version number, with whatever
that means for users (more PS for upgrades, etc). At the ASF we don't do
that. This went all the way to the board and the result was clear. Looks
like it may end up there again.

So, -1.
Hadrian

[1] https://semver.org/

On 12/06/2017 02:08 AM, Michael André Pearce wrote:

> Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x, but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
>
>
> On your commends about JBoss.
>
> I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.
>
> Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own versions, such as:
>
> Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
> Apache Kafka with Confluent
> Apache Ignite with GridGain
>
> They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the upstream Apache projects.
>
> On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based on ActiveMQ 5.X.
>
> Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this discussion IMO.
>
> On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others transitioning from their previous version.
>
> Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:
>
> * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X (https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
> * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
> * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
>   * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
>   * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> -1  I think we need to slow down.
>>
>> While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
>> single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made.
>> Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
>> deprecating AMQ 5 now.
>>
>> For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
>> this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
>> then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
>> the greatest of attention and care.
>>
>> Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
>> * What is the full list of features needed?
>> * How much adoption does Artemis have?
>> * How stable is Artemis?
>> * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
>>
>> Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
>>
>> Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
>> support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
>> transition for customers as possible.
>>
>> Please start to enumerate these points.
>>
>> BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
>> is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
>> confusion.
>>
>> ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
>> vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
>> having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
>> these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
>>
>> I'll post the link there now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

gtully
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> concerns.


This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.

is this what folks voted against?

gary.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon
That is what I voted for.  6.0 won't be released until concerns are
addressed, such as backwards compatibility and migration.

But we need to clarify to the users what the intentions are with Artemis.
Right now if you go to the website it's not at all clear what the plan is.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially
> state
> > the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> > ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> > concerns.
>
>
> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>
> is this what folks voted against?
>
> gary.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce Snyder
Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
statements and recast the vote?

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> That is what I voted for.  6.0 won't be released until concerns are
> addressed, such as backwards compatibility and migration.
>
> But we need to clarify to the users what the intentions are with Artemis.
> Right now if you go to the website it's not at all clear what the plan is.
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially
> > state
> > > the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> > > ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> > > concerns.
> >
> >
> > This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> > Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
> >
> > is this what folks voted against?
> >
> > gary.
> >
>



--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by gtully
Gary,

That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not
implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s
where for a different reason.

Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You
know how that went. What changed to start it all over again?

Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?

Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as
a project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's
clear that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that
serves the market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.

Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>> concerns.
>
>
> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>
> is this what folks voted against?
>
> gary.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce Snyder
This is why I suggested using explicit statements to clarify exactly what
is being voted on.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
> different reason.
>
> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
>
> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>>
>> is this what folks voted against?
>>
>> gary.
>>
>>


--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder


On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
> statements and recast the vote?

What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood
what the vote is for and voted accordingly?


>
> Bruce
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon
Hadrian,

In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
that we need to clarify the status of the project.

Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the
plan was with Artemis.  If it was more clear that Artemis was going to be
the future then maybe they would have used it instead of 5.x

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
>> statements and recast the vote?
>>
>
> What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood what
> the vote is for and voted accordingly?
>
>
>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea


On 12/06/2017 11:08 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> Hadrian,
>
> In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
> that we need to clarify the status of the project.

I fully understand your point, but first it has to be clarified
internally, not externally. Ages ago it was very clarified and stated
publicly that Apollo is the future ActiveMQ 6 and it will be fantastic.
Written in Scala it would have unparalleled performance and be something
the world has never seen (and btw, Hiram poured pure magic into Apollo,
brilliant work). There are users/companies who invested in that,
believing in what was advertised by the ActiveMQ community. Not a good
investment, not good for the reputation of the ActiveMQ community.

I, personally, do not believe the "yes, but this time it will be
different" argument and have more respect for the markets. Let's prove
it first and then we can announce whatever.

>
> Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
This is my feeling as well.

> They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the
> plan was with Artemis.  If it was more clear that Artemis was going to be
> the future then maybe they would have used it instead of 5.x
I don't think so. Like the *vast* majority of users, they don't make
choices based on interacting with the community. They do research,
figure out what people say, look at trends, see what 'experts' blog
about, see if there is diversity in support, whatever metrics they
choose, depending on their experience with open source (and AWS are no
amateurs, as we know). I doubt that that an "official statement of
intent" would have changed Amazon's decision driven by market metrics
(again, they're no amateurs), regardless of what we may convince
ourselves to believe. Do you have any factual reason to believe otherwise?

So let's increase Artemis' adoption based on its technical merits. Then
it won't matter how it's called. But let's not disrupt the marketplace
and piggyback adoption on the success of the ActiveMQ brand with PR stunts.

I understand people have visions, aspirations desires and all. That's
great. As a community, however, we are making commitment based on
consensus. That's the Apache Way.

I understand the vision and the intent, I don't think the community is
ready to make a commitment based on that vision. I think I am not alone
in believing that. I understand that others have different views and I
respect that.


>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
>>> statements and recast the vote?
>>>
>>
>> What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood what
>> the vote is for and voted accordingly?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
christopher.l.shannon wrote
> Hadrian,
>
> In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
> that we need to clarify the status of the project.
>
> Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
> They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the
> plan was with Artemis.  If it was more clear that Artemis was going to be
> the future then maybe they would have used it instead of 5.x

Umm no... you are actually quite incorrect on that. :-) Don't ask me how I
know that... because I cannot answer that.  But you are way off.  Hadrian's
answer was actually much more accurate.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

gtully
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
Hadrian,
inline

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 15:56 Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against.

That is what I wish to clarify but I presume you speak for your self here.


> I hope you are not
> implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s
> where for a different reason.
>
your hope has come true, there is no such implication.


> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You
> know how that went.

What changed to start it all over again?
>
> Artemis has got OpenWire support, a plugin framework and a console.
Features that mirror 5.x.
There is a bunch of artemis activity on the user list and the the dev list.
Apollo work has stoped. The activemq website still needs love and the
activemq project clearly needs a future direction beyond 5.x


Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology?

I agree marketing has a part in this, marketing the ActiveMQ brand as a
live project and reflecting the good work that the artemis devs are doing.
And sorting out or website has a huge part to play in that.
But I cannot agree that this is not about technology. As some one who has
intimate knowledge of 5.x I can categorically say that it is not the basis
for future development. It does what it does really well but making change
to that code base and not breaking existing users is very difficult. In a
way it is a victim of its own success, but a victim none the less.


> This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> It is about getting some consensus on a future. Nearly 3years have passed
since we accepted the hornetq donation in good faith. Contributions to 5.x
have dwindled and contributions to artemis have grown.


> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as
> a project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's
> clear that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that
> serves the market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>
> We cannot predict the future, we can only make it happen and I see the
energy around artemis provides a future path. The alternative is more
stagnation.

/gary.


> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially
> state
> >> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> >> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> >> concerns.
> >
> >
> > This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> > Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
> >
> > is this what folks voted against?
> >
> > gary.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
I really hope that is not the direction this is going.

This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5.
I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
technical.

My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
community.

The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable.
Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
viewed as so unreasonable?

I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:

https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/

Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:

https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/

Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.

So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
this immensely.

So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here are
ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
why it was named Artemis to begin with.

Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
too.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce Snyder
I don't disagree with the technical reasons, I call this compatibility
because it's about defining a very clear migration path and smoothing the
effort involved from a user point of when migrating from ActiveMQ 5.x ->
Artemis. In fact, I am going to step forward and start to define a roadmap
for this effort and encourage everyone to participate.

I disagree with discussing or even considering anything the vendors want to
do. Even when I worked for LogicBlaze and then IONA, I disagreed with
trying to drive our company agenda via the Apache ActiveMQ project. But
given that employees of different companies participate in Apache ActiveMQ,
I can't control them and I won't let their company agendas control the
Apache ActiveMQ project.

I had no idea that Clebert was going to call for a vote until I saw it in
flight early this morning. So, I thought, 'well, what the fuck, I'll vote'.
Although Clebert works for Red Hat, he does not care what they do or why
they do it. His full-time job is working on Artemis and he is passionate
about it. Unfortunately, his passion and eagerness get the best of him
sometimes causing him to take action as best he knows. Also consider that
Clebert is not very knowledgeable about the ASF and ways of the ActiveMQ
project.

With my thought to step forward and create the roadmap, I intend to work
with anyone who wants to participate to identify the tasks to be addressed
to have Artemis match some level of parity with ActiveMQ with the goal of
eventually having Artemis become ActiveMQ 6.x. I hold no preconceived
notions about this effort or the time it will take, it could take another
year or two years, I have no idea.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:19 AM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>
> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5.
> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
> technical.
>
> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
> community.
>
> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable.
> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> viewed as so unreasonable?
>
> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>
> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-
> what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>
> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>
> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/
> activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>
> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.
>
> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
> this immensely.
>
> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here
> are
> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>
> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
> too.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> f2368404.html
>



--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
BRUCE!!! o/  Good to see you!


Bruce Snyder wrote
> I disagree with discussing or even considering anything the vendors want
> to
> do. Even when I worked for LogicBlaze and then IONA, I disagreed with
> trying to drive our company agenda via the Apache ActiveMQ project. But
> given that employees of different companies participate in Apache
> ActiveMQ,
> I can't control them and I won't let their company agendas control the
> Apache ActiveMQ project.

Unfortunately its the elephant in the room and there is clear evidence of
the confusion going on.  That evidence was posted above, so it should be
discussed as its cornerstone to being part of the problem.  Not to mention
it was central focus to the discussions that occurred at ActiveMQ (and
Camel, etc) in the past.

Perhaps that discussion is not meant for dev and is a PMC issue.  But it
certainly is a reason for some of the kinks in the armor.  Bottom line is
their is certainly confusion in the community.


Bruce Snyder wrote

> I had no idea that Clebert was going to call for a vote until I saw it in
> flight early this morning. So, I thought, 'well, what the fuck, I'll
> vote'.
> Although Clebert works for Red Hat, he does not care what they do or why
> they do it. His full-time job is working on Artemis and he is passionate
> about it. Unfortunately, his passion and eagerness get the best of him
> sometimes causing him to take action as best he knows. Also consider that
> Clebert is not very knowledgeable about the ASF and ways of the ActiveMQ
> project.
>
> With my thought to step forward and create the roadmap, I intend to work
> with anyone who wants to participate to identify the tasks to be addressed
> to have Artemis match some level of parity with ActiveMQ with the goal of
> eventually having Artemis become ActiveMQ 6.x. I hold no preconceived
> notions about this effort or the time it will take, it could take another
> year or two years, I have no idea.

and this is what its all about ;-) Community and moving forward.  I do think
that Artemis should have more prominence on the ActiveMQ web site to show
its a strong part of the ActiveMQ family.  What we don't want to do is have
Artemis be another Apollo (supposed AMQ6 and ultimately abandoned).  So
IMHO, we should make Artemis more strongly associated with the ActiveMQ
project off its parent and build it from there.  Begin on the adoption and
migration path and get that community going.  Then its all good and everyone
is happy.  With that growth, perhaps Artemis WILL be the new ActiveMQ 6. :-)

Side note: Clebert is a great guy and one of the folks who I do see who
cares about the community and the code.  I'm not throwing anyone else under
the bus by comparison, but he has made it clear that he places Apache first
in past discussions.  For this its good to have him working with all of this
and I do know his intentions were benevolent and not that of his employer.  

Jeff



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jbertram
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
> What changed to start it all over again?

The answer to your question is not a secret.  I kicked off a discussion on
the user list about clarifying the ActiveMQ road-map based on interactions
with confused users.  This vote grew out of that discussion.

> This is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor
on accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?

In my view this discussion is about clarifying the road-map for ActiveMQ.
I would encourage you to take a look at the original email I sent which
kicked off the discussion to get more clarity.  It seems you've missed a
key part of the discussion so far.

> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version...

The "adoption" argument seems a bit circular to me.  I don't see how a
project can be run or at the very least a road-map defined based on future
adoption.  It seems to me that you're saying we have to wait for adoption
to clarify the ActiveMQ road-map, but in my opinion projects without a
clear road-map aren't likely to grow adoption significantly.

In another email you said we need to have this "clarified [sic] internally,
not externally."  However, isn't relying on adoption essentially
outsourcing the decision to external entities?  In my opinion, that's more
akin to just seeing where the wind is blowing rather than really building
community.

> No consensus yet.

Consensus as I understand it is just a majority of people who believe the
same way.  According to this vote so far there are 13 (including me) who
are in favor of Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6 and 4 who are opposed.  That's
76% to 24% respectively.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like consensus to
me.


Justin

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
> different reason.
>
> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
>
> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>>
>> is this what folks voted against?
>>
>> gary.
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by jgenender
@Jeff:

All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.

We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
whenever it was ready.

We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
people using it.. etc.. etc..

Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
all!!!).

If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
here).

Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
where we will get.


So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?





On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>
> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5.
> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
> technical.
>
> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
> community.
>
> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable.
> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> viewed as so unreasonable?
>
> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>
> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>
> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>
> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>
> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.
>
> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
> this immensely.
>
> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here are
> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>
> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
> too.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html



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

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon
@Justin,

In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
PMC member is a veto.

In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
would be considered a veto unless they are changed.

See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> @Jeff:
>
> All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
>
> We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> whenever it was ready.
>
> We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> people using it.. etc.. etc..
>
> Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> all!!!).
>
> If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> here).
>
> Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> where we will get.
>
>
> So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
> as
> > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
> Sorry,
> > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame
> and
> > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> >
> > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> folks
> > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
> > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> AMQ5.
> > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
> > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
> > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
> > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> *and*
> > technical.
> >
> > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> reasonable
> > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
> our
> > community.
> >
> > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> reasonable.
> > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
> > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> > viewed as so unreasonable?
> >
> > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
> > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> >
> > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> >
> > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> >
> > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> >
> > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
> > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
> the
> > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ
> 7.
> >
> > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
> > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
> > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
> and
> > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
> > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> clouds
> > this immensely.
> >
> > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here
> are
> > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
> and
> > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
> > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
> > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
> and
> > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> >
> > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
> it
> > too.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.
> html
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Justin Bertram
I see what you're saying, Chris.  My thought here is that consensus is
consensus no matter what, but in some situations a veto can overrule.  For
this particular vote there appears to be consensus with an overruling
veto.  If those are the rules that's fine, but let's not say there isn't
consensus where there actually is consensus.


Justin

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> @Justin,
>
> In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
> releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
> PMC member is a veto.
>
> In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
> would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
>
> See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > @Jeff:
> >
> > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> >
> > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> > whenever it was ready.
> >
> > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> >
> > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> > all!!!).
> >
> > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > here).
> >
> > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > where we will get.
> >
> >
> > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
> > as
> > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
> > Sorry,
> > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame
> > and
> > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > >
> > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> > folks
> > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> technical
> > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> > AMQ5.
> > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
> is
> > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
> its
> > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> old.
> > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> > *and*
> > > technical.
> > >
> > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > reasonable
> > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
> > our
> > > community.
> > >
> > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > reasonable.
> > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
> so
> > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > >
> > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
> and
> > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > >
> > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > >
> > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > >
> > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > >
> > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> numbering
> > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
> > the
> > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
> AMQ
> > 7.
> > >
> > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
> with
> > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
> and
> > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
> > and
> > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> this.
> > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > clouds
> > > this immensely.
> > >
> > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> here
> > are
> > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
> > and
> > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> non-technical
> > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
> 6.
> > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
> > and
> > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > >
> > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
> > it
> > > too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> .
> > html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
1234