You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2014/07/08 16:31:50 UTC
Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
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.
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <
>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>> >>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>> >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> http://redhat.com
>> >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Hiram Chirino
>> >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Hiram Chirino
>> >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <
> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
> >>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Hiram Chirino
> >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://redhat.com
> >> http://blog.garytully.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://redhat.com
> > http://blog.garytully.com
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://redhat.com
>> http://blog.garytully.com
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Ok. That is a good option too. Activemq6 is the target so we may as well
set out on that path.
+1 import to activemq6 branch
For package names.
We can use an apollo or activemq6 discriminator to allow co existance with
5.x client jars.
The number 6 seems a little arbitrary so maybe apollo is better?
On 7 Oct 2014 10:00, "Richard Kettelerij" <ri...@gmail.com>
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
> > 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
> > >> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> > >>>> clearance
> > >>>> work.
> > >>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are
> the
> > >>>> HQ
> > >>>> guys
> > >>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> > knowledgeable
> > >>>> help with the cleanup.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >>>> 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
> > >>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com
> >
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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 <
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> > gary.tully@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> > >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> > >>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> > >>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hiram Chirino
> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@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 <de...@nighttale.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for activemq6 as well.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>> ----------------------
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> dbosanac@redhat.com
>>> 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
>>> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I like the activemq6 idea better too
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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
>>>>>> <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>>>>>>>>> clearance
>>>>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant
>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> HQ
>>>>>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> knowledgeable
>>>>>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
>>>>>>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
>>>>>>> 4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <
>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com>
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 <de...@nighttale.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for activemq6 as well.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>> ----------------------
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> dbosanac@redhat.com
>>> 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 <
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I like the activemq6 idea better too
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>>> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> clearance
>>>>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> HQ
>>>>>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledgeable
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
>>>>>>> 4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <de...@nighttale.net> wrote:
>
>> +1 for activemq6 as well.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Dejan Bosanac
>> ----------------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> dbosanac@redhat.com
>> 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 <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I like the activemq6 idea better too
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>>>>>>>> clearance
>>>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant
>> are
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> HQ
>>>>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> knowledgeable
>>>>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
>>>>>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
>>>>>> 4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <
>>> gary.tully@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com
>>>>>>> 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 <
>> hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>
>
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
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 <de...@nighttale.net> wrote:
> +1 for activemq6 as well.
>
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> ----------------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> dbosanac@redhat.com
> 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 <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I like the activemq6 idea better too
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <hiram@hiramchirino.com
> >
> > >> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
> > >>> 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
> > >>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> > >>>>>>> clearance
> > >>>>>>> work.
> > >>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant
> are
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> HQ
> > >>>>>>> guys
> > >>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> knowledgeable
> > >>>
> > >>>> help with the cleanup.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
> > >>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
> > >>> 4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <
> > gary.tully@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 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 <hiram@hiramchirino.com
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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 <
> hiram@hiramchirino.com
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> > >>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> > >>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> > >>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
+1 for activemq6 as well.
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
dbosanac@redhat.com
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 <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> I like the activemq6 idea better too
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
> >>> 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
> >>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> >>>>>>> clearance
> >>>>>>> work.
> >>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> HQ
> >>>>>>> guys
> >>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> knowledgeable
> >>>
> >>>> help with the cleanup.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
> >>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
> >>> 4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>
> >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <
> gary.tully@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> 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 <hiram@hiramchirino.com
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> >>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Hiram Chirino
> >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1
I like the activemq6 idea better too
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>>>>> clearance
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> HQ
>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> knowledgeable
>>>
>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/
>>> 201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=
>>> 4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> gary.tully@gmail.com
>>>
>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>>>> clearance
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
>>>>>> HQ
>>>>>> guys
>>>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
>> knowledgeable
>>>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
>> gary.tully@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Richard Kettelerij <ri...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
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 <hz...@gmail.com>
> 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
> >> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> >>>> clearance
> >>>> work.
> >>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
> >>>> HQ
> >>>> guys
> >>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> knowledgeable
> >>>> help with the cleanup.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> gary.tully@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think we should morph the smarts of apollo into the hornet donation and
keep the product of the two as apollo. So hornetq helps apollo evolve into
next gen activemq.
On 6 Oct 2014 20:14, "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
> 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
> >> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
> >>>> clearance
> >>>> work.
> >>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
> >>>> HQ
> >>>> guys
> >>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have
> knowledgeable
> >>>> help with the cleanup.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <
> gary.tully@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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
>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip
>>>> clearance
>>>> work.
>>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the
>>>> HQ
>>>> guys
>>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
>>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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
>>>>> <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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
> <cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
>>> work.
>>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
>>> guys
>>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
>>> help with the cleanup.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>> 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 <
>>>>> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com
>>>>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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
<cl...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
>> work.
>> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
>> guys
>> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
>> help with the cleanup.
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > That sounds good to me.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> > 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> 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 <
>> > > hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> > 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
>> > > >>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>> > > >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> --
>> > > >>>>> http://redhat.com
>> > > >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> --
>> > > >>>> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
>> > > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
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 <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
> work.
> The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
> guys
> maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
> help with the cleanup.
>
> [1]
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> 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 <
> > > hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com
> >
> > > 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> > 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
> > > >>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> > > >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> http://redhat.com
> > > >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Hiram Chirino
> > > >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Hiram Chirino
> > > >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > >>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> > > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
the vote is complete[1], I think we can move forward with the ip clearance
work.
The best folks to weed out the third party deps from the grant are the HQ
guys
maybe it is best to sort out the commit rights so we have knowledgeable
help with the cleanup.
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmPNDAF4=HCoFuh0w6vNU+9vBHc24Dh9_HXnvm=4aqkb3w@mail.gmail.com%3E
On 24 September 2014 15:28, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That sounds good to me.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <
> > hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> 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
> > >>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> > >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> http://redhat.com
> > >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Hiram Chirino
> > >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > >>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
+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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
wrote:
> That sounds good to me.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <
> hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
> >>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Hiram Chirino
> >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
That sounds good to me.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> hchirino@redhat.com | 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.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://redhat.com
>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Hiram,
Yeah.. our master
We will work through the details here and fill up the documents
I know you know this.. but just for general knowledge HornetQ codebase is
already ASL2 license. We have this on the header of every source file:
....
* Red Hat licenses this file to you under the Apache License, version
* 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
* with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
We are looking into filling out the forms...
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> wrote:
> > I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
> >>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://redhat.com
> >> http://blog.garytully.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hiram Chirino
> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Nice!
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All the docs are part of the master.. being generated from XML... so they
> are part of the donation as well..
>
>
> The docs are developed maintained, so I don't think there would be any
> issues there.
>
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/tree/master/docs
>
>
>
> these docs are later just ftp-ed to the hornetq website just to make it
> easier for users to see it.. so git master includes it all.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> One more thing:
>>
>> HornetQ has a lot of good docs and information on the web site. Is the
>> intention to also donate some of that? If so, we’ll likely need a grant
>> for that, but that obviously may be a bit more difficult to identify from
>> git hash/tarball sha1/etc…. That wouldn’t need to be done immediately as
>> that could be done via a separate grant, but something to consider as well
>> while you are chasing things down inside RedHat. If you only have to do
>> that once, you could make it a bit easier on yourself. :-)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>> >>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>> >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> http://redhat.com
>> >>> http://blog.garytully.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Hiram Chirino
>> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Hiram Chirino
>> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
All the docs are part of the master.. being generated from XML... so they
are part of the donation as well..
The docs are developed maintained, so I don't think there would be any
issues there.
https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/tree/master/docs
these docs are later just ftp-ed to the hornetq website just to make it
easier for users to see it.. so git master includes it all.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> One more thing:
>
> HornetQ has a lot of good docs and information on the web site. Is the
> intention to also donate some of that? If so, we’ll likely need a grant
> for that, but that obviously may be a bit more difficult to identify from
> git hash/tarball sha1/etc…. That wouldn’t need to be done immediately as
> that could be done via a separate grant, but something to consider as well
> while you are chasing things down inside RedHat. If you only have to do
> that once, you could make it a bit easier on yourself. :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> wrote:
> >> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
> >>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://redhat.com
> >>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hiram Chirino
> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hiram Chirino
> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
One more thing:
HornetQ has a lot of good docs and information on the web site. Is the intention to also donate some of that? If so, we’ll likely need a grant for that, but that obviously may be a bit more difficult to identify from git hash/tarball sha1/etc…. That wouldn’t need to be done immediately as that could be done via a separate grant, but something to consider as well while you are chasing things down inside RedHat. If you only have to do that once, you could make it a bit easier on yourself. :-)
Dan
On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://redhat.com
>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://redhat.com
>> http://blog.garytully.com
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
>> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@hiramchirino.com> 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
> <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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
<cl...@gmail.com> 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.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
I agree with Rob there.
Regards
JB
On 08/20/2014 05:49 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
> It might be better to hold off doing to much work a head of time, you
> want to be build a community of developers around this :)
>
>> Clebert Suconic <ma...@gmail.com>
>> 20 August 2014 16:43
>> Meanwhile we are making our technical work. OpenWire is already part of our
>> master (one of the tasks we would need to have accomplished before we could
>> make any releases out of the new codebase). And making a lot of progress on
>> AMQP.
>>
>>
>> It's just paperwork now.. we will give an update here soon as I said.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
>>> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>>>
>>> We will have an update soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
>>> richardkettelerij@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath<si...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
>>>> projects.
>>>>> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>>>>>
>>>>> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Clebert Suconic <ma...@gmail.com>
>> 20 August 2014 16:42
>> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
>> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>>
>> We will have an update soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Kettelerij <ma...@gmail.com>
>> 16 August 2014 09:38
>> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>>
>>
>> sirinath <ma...@gmail.com>
>> 31 July 2014 10:18
>> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
>> projects.
>> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>>
>> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> Clebert Suconic <ma...@gmail.com>
>> 8 July 2014 15:31
>> Hi all,
>>
>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS
>> broker
>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning
>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
>> ActiveMQ community.
>>
>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us
>> to join
>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
>> there.
>>
>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a
>> basis for
>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
>> limitations.
>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance
>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already
>> supports
>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could
>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of
>> HornetQ.
>>
>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a
>> donation of
>> the HornetQ codebase.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Clebert.
>>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
It might be better to hold off doing to much work a head of time, you
want to be build a community of developers around this :)
> Clebert Suconic <ma...@gmail.com>
> 20 August 2014 16:43
> Meanwhile we are making our technical work. OpenWire is already part of our
> master (one of the tasks we would need to have accomplished before we could
> make any releases out of the new codebase). And making a lot of progress on
> AMQP.
>
>
> It's just paperwork now.. we will give an update here soon as I said.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic<clebert.suconic@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
>> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>>
>> We will have an update soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij<
>> richardkettelerij@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath<si...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
>>> projects.
>>>> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>>>>
>>>> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
> Clebert Suconic <ma...@gmail.com>
> 20 August 2014 16:42
> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>
> We will have an update soon.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
>
>
>
> Richard Kettelerij <ma...@gmail.com>
> 16 August 2014 09:38
> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>
>
> sirinath <ma...@gmail.com>
> 31 July 2014 10:18
> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
> projects.
> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>
> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> Clebert Suconic <ma...@gmail.com>
> 8 July 2014 15:31
> Hi all,
>
> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS
> broker
> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the planning
> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about
> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the
> ActiveMQ community.
>
> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us
> to join
> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of
> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our work
> there.
>
> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a
> basis for
> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current
> limitations.
> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good performance
> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already
> supports
> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward and
> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal could
> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance of
> HornetQ.
>
> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just
> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a
> donation of
> the HornetQ codebase.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Clebert.
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Meanwhile we are making our technical work. OpenWire is already part of our
master (one of the tasks we would need to have accomplished before we could
make any releases out of the new codebase). And making a lot of progress on
AMQP.
It's just paperwork now.. we will give an update here soon as I said.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
> paperwork that needs to be filled up.
>
> We will have an update soon.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
> richardkettelerij@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath <si...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
>> projects.
>> > Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>> >
>> > One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> >
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
>> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
We are still on track for this. we are having some delays due to the
paperwork that needs to be filled up.
We will have an update soon.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Richard Kettelerij <
richardkettelerij@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any progress on this? Just curious.
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache
> projects.
> > Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
> >
> > One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Richard Kettelerij <ri...@gmail.com>.
Any progress on this? Just curious.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, sirinath <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache projects.
> Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
>
> One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by sirinath <si...@gmail.com>.
Maybe you can consider consolidating Qpid also as both are Apache projects.
Also may be Kafka though this might need more through.
One fautre to retain should be embedded use in HornetQ
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683916.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Richard Kettelerij <ri...@gmail.com>.
+1 for consolidation. I've experience with both ActiveMQ and HornetQ and
both are great brokers with their own strengths and weaknesses. More
importantly there's a very large overlap. Combining both in one would be
huge!
I do belief it's important to keep a narrow focus in order to avoid ending
up with a new but overly bloated product. Also as Daniel mentioned the
HornetQ docs are great. I think it makes sense to use the same (docbook,
gitbook, etc) style for a new HornetQ+ActiveMQ product.
Regards,
Richard
http://richardlog.com
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Matthew Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 Consolidation should lead to a stronger overall product, and hopefully
> more active contributors and a larger combined user base =)
>
> On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> 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.
>
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Matthew Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 Consolidation should lead to a stronger overall product, and hopefully more active contributors and a larger combined user base =)
On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> 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.
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It sounds great !
+1
Regards
JB
On 07/08/2014 04:31 PM, Clebert Suconic 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.
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Christian Posta <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1
Let's do it!
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is great news for the ActiveMQ community. It will hopefully
> reinvigorate the community and help us create a new best of breed messaging
> solution.
>
>
> On 07/09/2014 04:48 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
>
>> I’m for this as well. Having a mix of good parts of ActiveMQ 5, HornetQ
>> and
>> Apollo would give us a good base to work on the next generation messaging
>> broker.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Dejan Bosanac
>> ----------------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> dbosanac@redhat.com
>> Twitter: @dejanb
>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Zakeria Hassan <za...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Clebert,
>>>
>>> I look forward to this aswell.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, surfnerd <su...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>>
>>>> This sounds amazing !
>>>> HornetQ has really good JMS implementation and cluster management.
>>>> Definitely good idea to merge developer community and bring better
>>>> functionality in final product.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to it !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-
>>> donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683008.html
>>>
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> tim.bish@redhat.com | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
http://fabric8.io
twitter: @christianposta
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
I think this is great news for the ActiveMQ community. It will
hopefully reinvigorate the community and help us create a new best of
breed messaging solution.
On 07/09/2014 04:48 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
> I’m for this as well. Having a mix of good parts of ActiveMQ 5, HornetQ and
> Apollo would give us a good base to work on the next generation messaging
> broker.
>
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> ----------------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> dbosanac@redhat.com
> Twitter: @dejanb
> Blog: http://sensatic.net
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Zakeria Hassan <za...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Clebert,
>>
>> I look forward to this aswell.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, surfnerd <su...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Clebert,
>>>
>>> This sounds amazing !
>>> HornetQ has really good JMS implementation and cluster management.
>>> Definitely good idea to merge developer community and bring better
>>> functionality in final product.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to it !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683008.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
I’m for this as well. Having a mix of good parts of ActiveMQ 5, HornetQ and
Apollo would give us a good base to work on the next generation messaging
broker.
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
dbosanac@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Zakeria Hassan <za...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Clebert,
>
> I look forward to this aswell.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, surfnerd <su...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Clebert,
> >
> > This sounds amazing !
> > HornetQ has really good JMS implementation and cluster management.
> > Definitely good idea to merge developer community and bring better
> > functionality in final product.
> >
> > Looking forward to it !
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683008.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Zakeria Hassan <za...@gmail.com>.
Hi Clebert,
I look forward to this aswell.
Thanks
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, surfnerd <su...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Hi Clebert,
>
> This sounds amazing !
> HornetQ has really good JMS implementation and cluster management.
> Definitely good idea to merge developer community and bring better
> functionality in final product.
>
> Looking forward to it !
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683008.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by surfnerd <su...@outlook.com>.
Hi Clebert,
This sounds amazing !
HornetQ has really good JMS implementation and cluster management.
Definitely good idea to merge developer community and bring better
functionality in final product.
Looking forward to it !
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683008.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1
Sounds great.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> 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.
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: cibsen@redhat.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
hawtio: http://hawt.io/
fabric8: http://fabric8.io/
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
Posted by jgenender <jg...@apache.org>.
Awesome! This could really change the landscape for MQs in opensource.
Getting the best of all of these makes one powerful product. I really look
forward to this!
Big +1 from me!
Jeff
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971p4683035.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.