Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

[oliverd <ol...@hotmail.com>]

Hi,

as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the
importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud,
IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create
a lot of momentum.

Personally, I don't get the point why having HornetQ as a subproject like
ActiveMQ Apollo is a problem - as I understand this was the original intent.
Did anyone bring up this point when Apollo was introduced?

I'm focused on the value for the users and would love to see HornetQ,
ActiveMQ emerge as one broker that can really compete going forward. Joining
forces makes a lot of sense to me. If projects get separated then
compatibility, migration topics might get less important.

Best Regards,
Oliver




--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694192.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Inline.
Hadrian


On 04/01/2015 06:47 AM, oliverd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the
> importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud,
> IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create
> a lot of momentum.
Strong +1. I think there is absolute consensus in the activemq community 
regarding the need for a scalable broker. The network of brokers is a 
cool feature that takes one down that path, but only so far... for now.

>
> Personally, I don't get the point why having HornetQ as a subproject like
> ActiveMQ Apollo is a problem - as I understand this was the original intent.
> Did anyone bring up this point when Apollo was introduced?
This is a subtle aspect, but important within the community. Yes it was 
discussed, many times.

>
> I'm focused on the value for the users and would love to see HornetQ,
> ActiveMQ emerge as one broker that can really compete going forward. Joining
> forces makes a lot of sense to me. If projects get separated then
> compatibility, migration topics might get less important.
I believe there is consensus on this either. The question is how. That's 
where we are trying to find the right path. Delivery is sometimes painful.

>
> Best Regards,
> Oliver
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694192.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>