You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> on 2016/12/07 21:29:29 UTC
[DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
*** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0
release for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x
feature parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I
will detail out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature
gaps.
Thoughts?
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
I think trying to address everything on your list in a single release is
probably a little ambitious. However, a major goal for Artemis is to try
to fill many of those feature gaps as possible (or at least offer similar
features that address the same use cases). It'd be great if your notes
were captured in JIRA. We can start adding them incrementally and
releasing often.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/2016 04:29 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
>> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>>
>> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
>> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
>> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will detail
>> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
> So you're looking to get 2.0 out by 2020 then? ;)
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 12/07/2016 04:29 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>
> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0
> release for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x
> feature parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense.
> I will detail out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis
> feature gaps.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
So you're looking to get 2.0 out by 2020 then? ;)
--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Christian Schneider <
> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>
>> I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing
>> goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies marketing
>> pushes for a major release based on a feature set as they think they can
>> sell it better. As an open source project ActiveMQ/Artemis has the luxury
>> to not being pushed by marketing.
>>
>> I currently do not see any bigger breaking API changes
>
> This thread has some more info: http://activemq-dev.markmail.
> org/search/?q=possible%202.0.0#query:possible%202.0.0+page:
> 1+mid:bt5v5z3l7n575vwc+state:results
>
Copy and paste fail...
The Nabble archieve is here:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Artemis-addressing-improvements-JMS-component-removal-and-potential-2-0-0-tt4719262.html
but I am not so much into the Artemis internals. Until now I was only
>> involved in the OSGi support.
>
>
>> I also think it is very good to talk about the upcoming or planned
>> features. I would make the list rather small though as in my experience the
>> actual features going into the code often differ from the plannings as
>> quite many people are involved at apache projects and the amount of work
>> they put in often can not be predicted well. So I would only look one or
>> two minor versions ahead most of the time.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On 08.12.2016 16:50, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>
>>> Christian-
>>>
>>> Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
>>> goal is to kick off a conversation.
>>>
>>> I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
>>> marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For
>>> Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features need
>>> to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and prioritize
>>> those features.
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> http://www.talend.com
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net
> wrote:
> I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing
> goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies marketing
> pushes for a major release based on a feature set as they think they can
> sell it better. As an open source project ActiveMQ/Artemis has the luxury
> to not being pushed by marketing.
>
> I currently do not see any bigger breaking API changes
This thread has some more info:
http://activemq-dev.markmail.org/search/?q=possible%202.0.0#query:possible%202.0.0+page:1+mid:bt5v5z3l7n575vwc+state:results
> but I am not so much into the Artemis internals. Until now I was only
> involved in the OSGi support.
> I also think it is very good to talk about the upcoming or planned
> features. I would make the list rather small though as in my experience the
> actual features going into the code often differ from the plannings as
> quite many people are involved at apache projects and the amount of work
> they put in often can not be predicted well. So I would only look one or
> two minor versions ahead most of the time.
>
> Christian
>
> On 08.12.2016 16:50, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
>> Christian-
>>
>> Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
>> goal is to kick off a conversation.
>>
>> I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
>> marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For
>> Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features need
>> to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and prioritize
>> those features.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> http://www.talend.com
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 12/8/16 11:35 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a
> marketing goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in
> companies marketing pushes for a major release based on a feature set
> as they think they can sell it better. As an open source project
> ActiveMQ/Artemis has the luxury to not being pushed by marketing.
+1
> I currently do not see any bigger breaking API changes but I am not so
> much into the Artemis internals. Until now I was only involved in the
> OSGi support.
>
> I also think it is very good to talk about the upcoming or planned
> features. I would make the list rather small though as in my
> experience the actual features going into the code often differ from
> the plannings as quite many people are involved at apache projects and
> the amount of work they put in often can not be predicted well. So I
> would only look one or two minor versions ahead most of the time.
Yeah, agreed. I think my intention on feature parity is to draw some
focus to features that would be API breaking in an effort to have 2.0 be
a good on-ramp for the general non-early adopter user (things like
recently completed Virtual Topics and the addressing changes) as a
reasonable time frame would permit.
I put together a big list and I'll filter through it and create JIRAs so
a more directed conversation can continue.
Thanks,
-Matt
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
I was not implying that the feature parity with ActiveMQ is a marketing
goal. I just wanted to show a case where typically in companies
marketing pushes for a major release based on a feature set as they
think they can sell it better. As an open source project
ActiveMQ/Artemis has the luxury to not being pushed by marketing.
I currently do not see any bigger breaking API changes but I am not so
much into the Artemis internals. Until now I was only involved in the
OSGi support.
I also think it is very good to talk about the upcoming or planned
features. I would make the list rather small though as in my experience
the actual features going into the code often differ from the plannings
as quite many people are involved at apache projects and the amount of
work they put in often can not be predicted well. So I would only look
one or two minor versions ahead most of the time.
Christian
On 08.12.2016 16:50, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> Christian-
>
> Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My
> #1 goal is to kick off a conversation.
>
> I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
> marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features.
> For Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of
> features need to be present. My intention with this thread is to
> discuss and prioritize those features.
>
> -Matt
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
Gotcha.. that sounds good. Thanks.
On 12/8/16 11:05 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
> I think Christian's issue is not with feature parity being a marketing goal
> but the fact that you aligned a major bump with a feature set rather than
> API changes etc.
>
> we have had this conversation a couple of times and altho its a good idea
> the discussion just goes of on all tangents since everyone wants different
> new functionality. I would suggest raising a Jira per enhancement and
> discuss each individually.
>
> On 8 December 2016 at 15:50, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Christian-
>>
>> Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
>> goal is to kick off a conversation.
>>
>> I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
>> marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For
>> Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features need
>> to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and prioritize
>> those features.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/8/16 1:52 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
>>> reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
>>> Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
>>> basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
>>> clients.
>>> For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> 2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>>>> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
>>>> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
>>>> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will
>>>> detail
>>>> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
I think Christian's issue is not with feature parity being a marketing goal
but the fact that you aligned a major bump with a feature set rather than
API changes etc.
we have had this conversation a couple of times and altho its a good idea
the discussion just goes of on all tangents since everyone wants different
new functionality. I would suggest raising a Jira per enhancement and
discuss each individually.
On 8 December 2016 at 15:50, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christian-
>
> Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
> goal is to kick off a conversation.
>
> I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
> marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For
> Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features need
> to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and prioritize
> those features.
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
> On 12/8/16 1:52 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>> As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
>> reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
>> Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
>> basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
>> clients.
>> For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
>> enough.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> 2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>>>
>>> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
>>> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
>>> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will
>>> detail
>>> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
Christian-
Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
goal is to kick off a conversation.
I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features.
For Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features
need to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and
prioritize those features.
-Matt
On 12/8/16 1:52 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
> reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
> Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
> basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
> clients.
> For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
> enough.
>
> Christian
>
> 2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
>> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>>
>> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
>> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
>> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will detail
>> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
I agree a major bump should only be required when breakages appear in APIs
or incompatability of existing client applications. That doesn't mean we
can't have a discussion about what features people would like in upcoming
releases.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Agree with Christian. It's a bit unfortunate.
>
What is unfortunate?
The purpose of proposing 2.0.0,as previously discussed on other threads, is
not for the introduction of new features, it's to address breakages in APIs
as a result of core model refactoring.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Dec 8, 2016, 07:53, at 07:53, Christian Schneider <
> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> >As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
> >reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
> >Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
> >basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
> >clients.
> >For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
> >enough.
> >
> >Christian
> >
> >2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
> >>
> >> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0
> >release
> >> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
> >> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will
> >detail
> >> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >--
> >Christian Schneider
> >http://www.liquid-reality.de
> ><https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e
> 46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de>
> >
> >Open Source Architect
> >http://www.talend.com
> ><https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e
> 46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Agree with Christian. It's a bit unfortunate.
Regards
JB\u2063\u200b
On Dec 8, 2016, 07:53, at 07:53, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
>reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
>Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
>basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
>clients.
>For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
>enough.
>
>Christian
>
>2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
>> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>>
>> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0
>release
>> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
>> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will
>detail
>> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>--
>Christian Schneider
>http://www.liquid-reality.de
><https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de>
>
>Open Source Architect
>http://www.talend.com
><https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
clients.
For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
enough.
Christian
2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>:
> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>
> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will detail
> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
--
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de>
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>