You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> on 2022/03/04 03:12:13 UTC
答复: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
> In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
Justin
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking
> architecture for improved scalability and performance, an architecture
> designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume,
> low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I
> understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future.
> That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine
> that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users
> out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of different
> reasons, and there are developers in the community who are committed to supporting "Classic."
>
> As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those
> features for a smooth transition. Of course there are differences
> between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the documentation for more details on that.
>
> The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released
> (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee
> here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in
> the community started looking at ways to deal with the performance and
> scalability limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They
> ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these
> ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early
> 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the Apollo subproject was
> designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. However, the early
> excitement around Apollo never coalesced into sustainable momentum. In
> my opinion this was mainly due to the fact that Apollo was written in
> Scala rather than Java which was used by ActiveMQ. However, the
> architectural underpinnings were solid and not terribly different from
> what was being implemented in the JBoss community in the HornetQ
> broker. In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached
> the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to
> Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ
> broker with all the great features and usability that the community
> had come to expect along with a high-performance, non-blocking
> architecture for the next generation of messaging applications. The
> donation was accepted and the aforementioned goal has been in progress ever since.
>
> I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
>
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
>> artemis?
>> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
>> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
>>
>
Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
That's correct.
Justin
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 7:22 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> In previous email, you said:
>
> In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with
> the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all
> the great features and usability that the community had come to expect long
> with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the next generation
> of messaging applications.
>
> " an ActiveMQ broker with ..." here is artemis, isn’t it?
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> 发送时间: 2022年3月4日 11:29
> 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
>
> > Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base.
>
> A modified version of the HornetQ code-base was the basis for the initial
> donation to the ActiveMQ community back in late October 2015. Of course,
> since that time the code-base has been heavily modified via over 9,000
> commits from over 170 different contributors.
>
> > At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
>
> I'm not clear on what you're asking here. Can you clarify your question?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:12 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At
> > the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
> >
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> > 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
> > 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> > 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
> >
> > > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> > ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
> >
> > This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> > > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance,
> > > non-blocking architecture for improved scalability and performance,
> > > an architecture designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g.
> > > high-volume, low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The
> > > goal, as I understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of
> the future.
> > > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> > > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't
> > > imagine that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots
> > > of users out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of
> > > different reasons, and there are developers in the community who are
> > > committed to
> > supporting "Classic."
> > >
> > > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> > > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want
> > > those features for a smooth transition. Of course there are
> > > differences between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the
> > > documentation for
> > more details on that.
> > >
> > > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first
> > > released (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management
> > > Committee here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other
> > > developers in the community started looking at ways to deal with the
> > > performance and scalability limitations inherent in the broker's
> > > architecture. They ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called
> > > "Apollo" where these ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release
> > > was announced in early 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the
> > > Apollo subproject was designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the
> > > future. However, the early excitement around Apollo never coalesced
> > > into sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was mainly due to the
> > > fact that Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java which was
> > > used by ActiveMQ. However, the architectural underpinnings were
> > > solid and not terribly different from what was being implemented in
> > > the JBoss community in the HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of
> > > developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to
> > > discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of
> > > creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the
> > > great features and usability that the community had come to expect
> > > along with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the
> > > next generation of messaging applications. The donation was accepted
> > > and the aforementioned goal has been in progress
> > ever since.
> > >
> > > I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> > > domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
> > >> artemis?
> > >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is
> devleped?
> > >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
答复: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com>.
In previous email, you said:
In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the great features and usability that the community had come to expect long with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the next generation of messaging applications.
" an ActiveMQ broker with ..." here is artemis, isn’t it?
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
发送时间: 2022年3月4日 11:29
收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
> Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base.
A modified version of the HornetQ code-base was the basis for the initial donation to the ActiveMQ community back in late October 2015. Of course, since that time the code-base has been heavily modified via over 9,000 commits from over 170 different contributors.
> At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
I'm not clear on what you're asking here. Can you clarify your question?
Justin
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:12 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At
> the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
> 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
>
> > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
>
> This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance,
> > non-blocking architecture for improved scalability and performance,
> > an architecture designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g.
> > high-volume, low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The
> > goal, as I understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future.
> > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't
> > imagine that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots
> > of users out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of
> > different reasons, and there are developers in the community who are
> > committed to
> supporting "Classic."
> >
> > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want
> > those features for a smooth transition. Of course there are
> > differences between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the
> > documentation for
> more details on that.
> >
> > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first
> > released (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management
> > Committee here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other
> > developers in the community started looking at ways to deal with the
> > performance and scalability limitations inherent in the broker's
> > architecture. They ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called
> > "Apollo" where these ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release
> > was announced in early 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the
> > Apollo subproject was designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the
> > future. However, the early excitement around Apollo never coalesced
> > into sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was mainly due to the
> > fact that Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java which was
> > used by ActiveMQ. However, the architectural underpinnings were
> > solid and not terribly different from what was being implemented in
> > the JBoss community in the HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of
> > developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to
> > discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of
> > creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the
> > great features and usability that the community had come to expect
> > along with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the
> > next generation of messaging applications. The donation was accepted
> > and the aforementioned goal has been in progress
> ever since.
> >
> > I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> > domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
> >> artemis?
> >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
> >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
> >>
> >
>
Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
> Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base.
A modified version of the HornetQ code-base was the basis for the initial
donation to the ActiveMQ community back in late October 2015. Of course,
since that time the code-base has been heavily modified via over 9,000
commits from over 170 different contributors.
> At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
I'm not clear on what you're asking here. Can you clarify your question?
Justin
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:12 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At the
> same time, how to support activemq was considered.
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
> 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
>
> > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
>
> This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking
> > architecture for improved scalability and performance, an architecture
> > designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume,
> > low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I
> > understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future.
> > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine
> > that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users
> > out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of different
> > reasons, and there are developers in the community who are committed to
> supporting "Classic."
> >
> > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those
> > features for a smooth transition. Of course there are differences
> > between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the documentation for
> more details on that.
> >
> > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released
> > (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee
> > here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in
> > the community started looking at ways to deal with the performance and
> > scalability limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They
> > ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these
> > ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early
> > 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the Apollo subproject was
> > designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. However, the early
> > excitement around Apollo never coalesced into sustainable momentum. In
> > my opinion this was mainly due to the fact that Apollo was written in
> > Scala rather than Java which was used by ActiveMQ. However, the
> > architectural underpinnings were solid and not terribly different from
> > what was being implemented in the JBoss community in the HornetQ
> > broker. In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached
> > the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to
> > Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ
> > broker with all the great features and usability that the community
> > had come to expect along with a high-performance, non-blocking
> > architecture for the next generation of messaging applications. The
> > donation was accepted and the aforementioned goal has been in progress
> ever since.
> >
> > I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> > domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
> >> artemis?
> >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
> >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
> >>
> >
>