You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> on 2014/09/24 12:54:10 UTC
Re: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ
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>.
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