You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> on 2015/03/25 09:47:36 UTC
[DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
(was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
Thanks Lionel - I agree.
The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
community.
On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
the community.
It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
sub-project with its own name.
Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
Rob
> Lionel Cons <ma...@cern.ch>
> 25 March 2015 06:58
> (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves
> more
> than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>
> Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started
> in 2010
> as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that
> time,
> the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>
> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo
> developments
> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
> still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>
> In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to
> ActiveMQ. The
> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
> "ActiveMQ's
> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>
> For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
> HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>
> If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we
> should get
> a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor
> versions later
> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>
> If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
> ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve
> there
> and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
> project
> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lionel Cons
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by oliverd <ol...@hotmail.com>.
Hi,
as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the
importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud,
IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create
a lot of momentum.
Personally, I don't get the point why having HornetQ as a subproject like
ActiveMQ Apollo is a problem - as I understand this was the original intent.
Did anyone bring up this point when Apollo was introduced?
I'm focused on the value for the users and would love to see HornetQ,
ActiveMQ emerge as one broker that can really compete going forward. Joining
forces makes a lot of sense to me. If projects get separated then
compatibility, migration topics might get less important.
Best Regards,
Oliver
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694196.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I completely agree. This is what I was fumbling towards trying to say. (not trying to take credit for saying anything first…)
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both Rob and Hadrian seem to agree that a key stumbling block is the "need to grow a diverse community first". Then it could be called ActiveMQ 6. I don't buy that.
>
> There are two bits, diverse and community.
>
> The qualifier diverse is a problem with the ActiveMQ community today. It has been a long standing issue and it is related to the nature of the problem space and to industry consolidation. A code donation cannot be expected to rectify that on its own. The only way to rectify this issue is growth.
>
> On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6 code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc.
>
> This is happening *in* the ActiveMQ community.
>
> Rallying around activemq 6 milestones is an opportunity to grow the community and reach a new audience.
>
> Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ rudderless.
>
> Gary.
>
>
> On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of the community.
>
> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a sub-project with its own name.
> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
> Rob
>> Lionel Cons 25 March 2015 06:58
>> (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more
>> than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>
>> Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>> as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>> the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>
>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>> still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>
>> In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ. The
>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline, "ActiveMQ's
>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>
>> For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>> HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>
>> If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>> a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions later
>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>
>> If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>> ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>> and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ project
>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lionel Cons
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Art,
you will have to do your own investigation to be sure but I would
encourage you to investigate specjms. Granted it is one benchmark, but
it is well thought out and independent, also the hardware is the
uniform across results. It demonstrates the known shortcomings of the
5.x architecture. 5.x simply won't scale across cores. 5.x is many
things to many folk and will have a long future but there are some
metrics it simply cannot match.
To answer "what problem are we solving" in 6, in a nutshell - scalability.
On 25 March 2015 at 16:05, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>
> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that
> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
> having this discussion.
>
> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it mean
> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>
> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>
> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the ActiveMQ
> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that
> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>
> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>
> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of
> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>
> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
> merits described.
>
> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693805.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
This would all apply if there was an idea that there should end up being two products. My understanding when the vote happened was that
-- everyone agreed activemq needed a new broker
-- our homegrown effort Apollo didn't work out (I still want to know why….)
-- the hornetQ people had a modern broker that they wanted to bring in to activemq and help the community hook up all the non-broker bits to
-- the result would be called activemq and there would be one community and one product
I don't see how bringing the code into the incubator would be compatible with this agenda.
As far as I can tell the new committers from the broker formerly known as hornetQ have been enthusiastically pursuing this agenda accompanied by what seems to me to be a lot of complaining from some pre-existing community members.
Which parts of this did I get wrong?
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>
> Note we recently went through a similar thought
> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>
> Here are a few reasons:
>
> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>
> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
> already.
>
> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
> the IP clearance.
>
> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>
> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>
> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
> are ASF or IPMC members
> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
> out during Incubation.
>
> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>> that
>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
>> having this discussion.
>>
>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>> mean
>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>
>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>
>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>> ActiveMQ
>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>> that
>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>
>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>
>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength
>> of
>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>
>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
>> merits described.
>>
>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>> ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Hiram,
It’s much more than removing references. Please see:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
It’s also an involved process that needs to include
committees like trademarks@, etc.
We need to involve people and the PMC in particular needs
to work with the appropriate committees. That’s a PMC’s job.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Reply-To: "board@apache.org" <bo...@apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 9:02 AM
To: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org>
Cc: ActiveMQ-Developers <de...@activemq.apache.org>, Apache Brand Management
<tr...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Hi Chris,
>
>If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>perspective.
>
>On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>wrote:
>> John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part
>> of the larger point. There is a serious
>> naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing
>> as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or
>> having the product be in compliance with the naming guidelines from
>> Trademarks and its committee. Bringing trademarks@
>> in to the conversation now which should have been done by this PMC
>> long ago. The fact that it wasn’t is troubling.
>>
>> I think that the PMC needs a full report at the next board meeting.
>> CC’ing board@ as I may or may not be a Director when that happens but
>> it should be picked up by the newly elected board.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:52 AM
>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
>>>> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
>>>> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Note we recently went through a similar thought
>>>> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
>>>> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
>>>> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
>>>> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
>>>> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
>>>> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>>>>
>>>> Here are a few reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
>>>> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
>>>> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
>>>> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
>>>> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
>>>> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
>>>> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
>>>> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
>>>> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
>>>> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
>>>> already.
>>>>
>>>> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
>>>> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
>>>> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
>>>> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
>>>> the IP clearance.
>>>>
>>>> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
>>>> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
>>>> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>>>>
>>>> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
>>>> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
>>>> are ASF or IPMC members
>>>> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
>>>> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
>>>> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
>>>> out during Incubation.
>>>>
>>>> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
>>>> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
>>>> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>>Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past
>>>and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>>Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking
>>>for a
>>>JMS 2.0 implementation. Heck, that's why I went through the pain of
>>>ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to
>>>see
>>>it happen. I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0
>>>implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I
>>>believe
>>>all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet
>>>the
>>>feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it.
>>>While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that
>>>point? It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to
>>>release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while).
>>>
>>>With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the
>>>ActiveMQ
>>>project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when
>>>HornetQ's
>>>ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for
>>>ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via
>>>vote). Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut
>>>releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors.
>>>
>>>The sticking point's going to come down to name. I don't see Red Hat
>>>shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name
>>>would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache
>>>isn't even referenced on the site.
>>>
>>>If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my
>>>hat
>>>in as a mentor to get you going.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
>>>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>>
>>>> >Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>>>the
>>>> >naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>>>really
>>>> >change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ
>>>>will
>>>> >succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>> >
>>>> >Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making
>>>>sure
>>>> >that
>>>> >direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad
>>>>to be
>>>> >having this discussion.
>>>> >
>>>> >The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave
>>>>ActiveMQ
>>>> >rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does
>>>>it
>>>> >mean
>>>> >that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>> >
>>>> >So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>> >
>>>> >We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>> >ActiveMQ
>>>> >community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument
>>>>(consider
>>>> >that
>>>> >Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>> >
>>>> >ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>>> >mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>>>industries,
>>>> >and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>> >
>>>> >Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>>>strength
>>>> >of
>>>> >technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>>>technology;
>>>> >ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>>>presumption
>>>> >that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>> >
>>>> >Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>>valid
>>>> >merits described.
>>>> >
>>>> >I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>>> >understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >--
>>>> >View this message in context:
>>>> >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-
>>>> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>>>> >ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>> >Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Hiram Chirino
>Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Thank you Rob - that's great insight. It is giving me much on which to
reflect.
With that said - since the board is involved at this time, would you mind to
table this discussion until after we hear from them? While I would love to
continue this discussion, learn more, and share ideas, the board's guidance
can have a significant impact on taking the discussion further.
I didn't want to leave this discussion hanging without a response.
Art
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694028.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
And?
On 03/27/2015 02:36 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> Then we are back to having 2 brokers & communities.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How does it make more work for "everyone"?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
>>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>>
>>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>>> make more work for everyone...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <
>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>>> smooth migration path.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>>> become.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>> the
>>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>> project,
>>>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
>> version.
>>>> This
>>>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>> project
>>>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without
>> the
>>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>> accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat
>> biased
>>>> on
>>>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>> affiliation -
>>>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>> imported
>>>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>> of a
>>>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>> that
>>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have
>> been
>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call
>> it
>>>> the
>>>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>> that
>>>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the
>> code
>>>> be
>>>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jon
>>> ---------------
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> Email: janstey@redhat.com
>>> Web: http://redhat.com
>>> Twitter: jon_anstey
>>> Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
So, how does this make more work for the AMQ community? Or the
HornetQ community for that matter?
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we are back to having 2 brokers & communities.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How does it make more work for "everyone"?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
>> > NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>> >
>> > "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."
>> >
>> >
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>> >
>> > IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>> > make more work for everyone...
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <
>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>> >> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>> >> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>> >> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>> >> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>> >> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>> >> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>> >> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>> >> smooth migration path.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>> >> > points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>> >> > project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>> >> > is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>> >> >
>> >> > So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>> >> > a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>> >> > path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>> >> > do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>> >> > users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>> >> > become.
>> >> >
>> >> > We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>> >> > the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>> >> >> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>> >> >> heard.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi Chris,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>> >> >>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>> >> >>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>> >> >>> perspective.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>> the
>> >> >> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>> >> project,
>> >> >> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
>> version.
>> >> This
>> >> >> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>> >> project
>> >> >> community, and their perception is that this has been done without
>> the
>> >> >> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>> >> accusation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat
>> biased
>> >> on
>> >> >> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>> >> affiliation -
>> >> >> an even more serious accusation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>> >> imported
>> >> >> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>> >> of a
>> >> >> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>> >> >> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>> that
>> >> >> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have
>> been
>> >> >> suggested.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call
>> it
>> >> the
>> >> >> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>> >> that
>> >> >> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the
>> code
>> >> be
>> >> >> taken to the incubator.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> >> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Hiram Chirino
>> >> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> > Jon
>> > ---------------
>> > Red Hat, Inc.
>> > Email: janstey@redhat.com
>> > Web: http://redhat.com
>> > Twitter: jon_anstey
>> > Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
>> > Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jon
> ---------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Email: janstey@redhat.com
> Web: http://redhat.com
> Twitter: jon_anstey
> Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Then we are back to having 2 brokers & communities.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
wrote:
> How does it make more work for "everyone"?
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
> > NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
> >
> > "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."
> >
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
> >
> > IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
> > make more work for everyone...
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <
> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
> >> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
> >> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
> >> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
> >> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
> >> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
> >> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
> >> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
> >> smooth migration path.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> >> > points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> >> > project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> >> > is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
> >> >
> >> > So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> >> > a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> >> > path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> >> > do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> >> > users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> >> > become.
> >> >
> >> > We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> >> > the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> >> >> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> >> >> heard.)
> >> >>
> >> >> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Chris,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
> >> >>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
> >> >>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
> >> >>> perspective.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
> the
> >> >> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
> >> project,
> >> >> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
> version.
> >> This
> >> >> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
> >> project
> >> >> community, and their perception is that this has been done without
> the
> >> >> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
> >> accusation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat
> biased
> >> on
> >> >> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
> >> affiliation -
> >> >> an even more serious accusation.
> >> >>
> >> >> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
> >> imported
> >> >> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
> >> of a
> >> >> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
> >> >>
> >> >> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> >> >> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
> that
> >> >> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
> >> >>
> >> >> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have
> been
> >> >> suggested.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call
> it
> >> the
> >> >> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
> >> that
> >> >> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the
> code
> >> be
> >> >> taken to the incubator.)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Hiram Chirino
> >> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
> > ---------------
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> > Email: janstey@redhat.com
> > Web: http://redhat.com
> > Twitter: jon_anstey
> > Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
> > Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
---------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: janstey@redhat.com
Web: http://redhat.com
Twitter: jon_anstey
Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
How does it make more work for "everyone"?
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>
> "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."
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>
> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
> make more work for everyone...
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>> smooth migration path.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>> > points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>> > project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>> > is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>> >
>> > So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>> > a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>> > path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>> > do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>> > users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>> > become.
>> >
>> > We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>> > the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> >> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>> >> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>> >> heard.)
>> >>
>> >> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Chris,
>> >>>
>> >>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>> >>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>> >>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>> >>> perspective.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>> >> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>> project,
>> >> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>> This
>> >> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>> project
>> >> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>> >> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>> accusation.
>> >>
>> >> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>> on
>> >> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>> affiliation -
>> >> an even more serious accusation.
>> >>
>> >> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>> imported
>> >> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>> of a
>> >> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>> >>
>> >> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>> >> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>> >> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>> >>
>> >> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>> >> suggested.
>> >>
>> >> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>> >>
>> >> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>> the
>> >> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>> that
>> >> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>> be
>> >> taken to the incubator.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Hiram Chirino
>> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jon
> ---------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Email: janstey@redhat.com
> Web: http://redhat.com
> Twitter: jon_anstey
> Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
I think I'm missing something here. How does the existence of some
other messaging broker in the incubator (or anywhere for that matter)
cause extra work for the AMQ community? If you mean they'll have to
try to keep up with the Joneses, then maybe I get it, but that's
what's called competition. And, it's good for the market. What would
the world be like if Pepsi and Coke merged (aside from the unfortunate
name "poke")? It'd be "dogs and cats living together... mass
hysteria!"
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All the devs writing/maintaining the code?
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Really Jon?
>>
>> How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>>
>>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
>>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-
>>> donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>>
>>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>>> make more work for everyone...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>>> smooth migration path.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>>> become.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>>>>
>>>>> project,
>>>>
>>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This
>>>>
>>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>>>>
>>>>> project
>>>>
>>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>>>>
>>>>> accusation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>>>>>>
>>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>>>>
>>>>> affiliation -
>>>>
>>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>>>>
>>>>> imported
>>>>
>>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>>>>
>>>>> of a
>>>>
>>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>>>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jon
> ---------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Email: janstey@redhat.com
> Web: http://redhat.com
> Twitter: jon_anstey
> Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
I meant "All the devs writing/maintaining the code" so that is the whole
group of ActiveMQ committers. Sure for one dev it will be less work because
they'll just stick to their current project. Anyway, was just trying
(badly) to make a simple point :-)
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If by that you mean those from RH (who are the overwhelming majority
> here), yes, I understand, that's possible.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 03/27/2015 02:43 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>
>> All the devs writing/maintaining the code?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Really Jon?
>>>
>>> How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>>>
>>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was
>>>> to
>>>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-
>>>> donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>>>
>>>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>>>> make more work for everyone...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <
>>>> james@carmanconsulting.com
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>>>
>>>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>>>> smooth migration path.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>>>> become.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat
>>>>>>> biased
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affiliation -
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> imported
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
--
Cheers,
Jon
---------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: janstey@redhat.com
Web: http://redhat.com
Twitter: jon_anstey
Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
If by that you mean those from RH (who are the overwhelming majority
here), yes, I understand, that's possible.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 02:43 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> All the devs writing/maintaining the code?
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Really Jon?
>>
>> How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>>
>>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
>>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-
>>> donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>>
>>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>>> make more work for everyone...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>>> smooth migration path.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>>> become.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>>>>
>>>>> project,
>>>>
>>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This
>>>>
>>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>>>>
>>>>> project
>>>>
>>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>>>>
>>>>> accusation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>>>>>>
>>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>>>>
>>>>> affiliation -
>>>>
>>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>>>>
>>>>> imported
>>>>
>>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>>>>
>>>>> of a
>>>>
>>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>>>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
All the devs writing/maintaining the code?
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really Jon?
>
> How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>
>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-
>> donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>
>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>> make more work for everyone...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>> smooth migration path.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>
>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>> become.
>>>>
>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>>> the
>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>>>
>>>> project,
>>>
>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>>>>>
>>>> This
>>>
>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>>>
>>>> project
>>>
>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>>>
>>>> accusation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>>>>>
>>>> on
>>>
>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>>>
>>>> affiliation -
>>>
>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>>>
>>>> imported
>>>
>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>>>
>>>> of a
>>>
>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>>> that
>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>
>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>>>>>
>>>> be
>>>
>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Cheers,
Jon
---------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: janstey@redhat.com
Web: http://redhat.com
Twitter: jon_anstey
Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Thank you for your comments, Jakub. What’s important to me
is you pointing out that there are two distinct communities
here. That’s my read as well.
At Apache we don’t shove two communities together that aren’t
necessarily sure they wanted to be shoved together in the
first place. A majority of the PMC can’t force the minority
to do things like this, or the board steps in. We have
means and mechanisms to support >1 community; it’s called new
projects. At the ASF they can arrive through Incubation and/or
through an experimental direct-to-TLP initiative for projects
that meet a certain criteria/bar. It’s 1 PMC per community at
the ASF - years ago we supported things called “umbrella projects”
until we found out that there are loads of issues with them. You
don’t see umbrella projects too much more at the ASF.
Given the above and given Jim’s recent reply else-thread,
the ActiveMQ PMC needs to develop a plan for recognizing
what many of us have already; that there are 2 communities here
and as such there needs to be 2 projects (HornetQ->Incubation);
or a plan for how there isn’t 2 communities and what specific
steps there are for that to be true.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Jakub Korab <ja...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:58 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>I thought I'd add my bit, and this point in the thread seemed as good
>any. My background's a bit different to the other people here in that
>I'm not a committer, but definitely consider myself part of the broader
>community and work with ActiveMQ on pretty much a daily basis (so have
>skin in the game), but am not employed by any particular vendor.
>
>The need for a new broker architecture is pretty strong. ActiveMQ 5 just
>doesn't make best use of the resources that you give it - disk, network,
>CPU cores, whatever - and people end up jumping into clustering much
>sooner than they should. Having said that, performance isn't the be-all
>and end-all, otherwise people would switch to whatever competing product
>is fastest. There's loads of goodies within ActiveMQ that aren't in any
>equivalent broker, and a lot of that value and work that's been done
>ought to get carried over (replicated LevelDB as a random example). What
>users want to see in whatever the next version of AMQ is, is the
>features that they're currently using.
>
>What I understand has always been the intent (from reading this mailing
>list for some time) was that all the good bits get carried over to a new
>core. If someone has already written a new core and donated it, as has
>happened, that's awesome. What I'm seeing through the JIRAs is that
>there are definitely two groups of distinct committers working on what
>appears to be two products (hence the talk about incubation etc. - which
>I hope ends up not happening). Splitting the HQ donation by name to a
>new project, and maybe merging the two at some point, seems out of line
>with the original intent and partitions the set of developers further.
>Cross-project cooperation on something as complex as this is a nice but
>ultimately unlikely-to-be-realised idea; under one name it has a strong
>chance of working out. As Rob has pointed out, rewriting a core based on
>the good ideas of HQ, would still require loads of work to get it do all
>the things that the HQ core already does - and people/time to do it.
>
>Assuming that there is consensus around these points (which there
>doesn't sound like there necessarily is), the idea of a separate line of
>development (as is currently taking place) with milestone releases
>sounds like the way forward. What needs to support it from a community
>point of view is:
>
> * Clarity to users around what activity is going on (I get asked this
> all the time). To that extent, a feature-compatibility table needs
> to be drawn up and left on the wiki, that way at least from an
> outsider's view you can see what the current state of play is and
> what the future plans are.
> * Publicly accessible architecture/developer documentation around the
> HQ core. It's hard to contribute to a project that is "kindof like
> the old thing, but completely different" with no pointers.
> * Interoperability between the 2. At the network of brokers level at
> the minimum (maybe already there - see my first point), and perhaps
> the at the store level.
>
>What I think makes sense in the future is that ActiveMQ 5 doesn't need
>to go away, it stays in a kind of maintenance mode++, with the big new
>features building on the newer core. I'm thinking a bit like what
>happened with Struts 1.x relative to 2.x. The commits just dropped off
>after a while, as the bulk of the work moved to the 2.x core (which also
>came from an external donation - WebWork).
>
>Whatever happens, I look forward to working with and contributing to
>ActiveMQ in the future.
>
>Jakub
>
>
>On 28/03/15 21:09, Rob Davies wrote:
>> Art - I hope these are the questions you thought haven't been answered.
>>This is my POV only.
>>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 18:58, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't agree with the presumption that ActiveMQ *needs* a *new*
>>>broker.
>> I implemented the architecture for ActiveMQ 1.0 (before it was
>>detonated to Apache) - and since then Hiram and I have pretty much
>>alternated redesigning the broker with each major version. ActiveMQ 5
>>was designed primarily to address the use case that some users wanted
>>really long term message persistence (hence the message cursor
>>implementation).
>> Message brokers get compared on a relative small set of features -
>>which boil down to usually straight throughput and scalability. The
>>ActiveMQ threading model is quiet heavy - there's a lot of context
>>switching as commands are passed from top to storage - and a lot of
>>synchronisation along the way. To compete on throughput and scalability
>>- a revamp is required. Hiram wrote Apollo with the hope it would be
>>ActiveMQ 6. Technically Apollo is really good - it has really efficient
>>threading model, no sync points and is completely asynchronous. The
>>reason Apollo didn't gain traction is because it was written in Scala -
>>actually only a couple of folks attempted to get involved.
>>
>> So writing a new architecture isn't particularly hard - probably a few
>>months - but making sure it can handle all the edge cases will take
>>years. Adding a new feature or fixing a bug in ActiveMQ 5 can take weeks
>>- and that's because of all the test cases you have to pass to ensure
>>you don't introduce a new bug whilst "fixing" something. Tinkering
>>around the edges of the broker is relatively straight forward however. I
>>think it's true that only a small number of committers tackle broker
>>issues in ActiveMQ 5.
>>
>> HornetQ is asynchronous, built on top of netty (so the TCP
>>implementation is extremely fast) but more importantly it's been around
>>for a while and looks mature - which is why I assume it looks appealing.
>>All the hard work involved in bedding in a new architecture has been
>>done.
>>
>>> Nor
>>> with the argument that it will die out if it doesn't get one.
>> I agree. users really seem to like ActiveMQ because it is so flexible!
>>However, there are a lot of areas where I wish ActiveMQ played a bigger
>>role - like infrastructure messaging or IoT - which is why Apollo was
>>written wasn't it? It's a shame a lot of people were put of by Scala -
>>me included. It's impossible to gauge what will happen to ActiveMQ, but
>>there is demand for messaging that AotiveMQ isn't even considered - and
>>I think that's a shame.
>>
>>> Whole-sale replacement is hard. I worked in a company that *still*
>>>uses
>>> technology dating back to 1980 because several efforts to whole-sale
>>>replace
>>> the existing platform failed. That approach is hard. Note that I am
>>>not
>>> arguing that it's impossible, but this does make me concerned that
>>>even with
>>> the AMQ-6 name, HornetQ may fail to replace ActiveMQ - even as it
>>>continues
>>> as a completely successful product of its own.
>>>
>>> With all of that said, if it proves that ActiveMQ dies out without a
>>>new
>>> broker, I am alright with that. As mentioned before, if HornetQ takes
>>>over
>>> the market, I don't see that as a bad thing and look forward to the
>>> opportunity to contribute there, or move on to other things.
>> We have an opportunity to take the best of both implementations and
>>make something compelling - and doing something bold gets attention -
>>and we can grow a community of developers around that. It would be great
>>if you could help drive that too.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-ge
>>>neration-tp4693781p4693983.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jakub Korab <ja...@gmail.com>.
I thought I'd add my bit, and this point in the thread seemed as good
any. My background's a bit different to the other people here in that
I'm not a committer, but definitely consider myself part of the broader
community and work with ActiveMQ on pretty much a daily basis (so have
skin in the game), but am not employed by any particular vendor.
The need for a new broker architecture is pretty strong. ActiveMQ 5 just
doesn't make best use of the resources that you give it - disk, network,
CPU cores, whatever - and people end up jumping into clustering much
sooner than they should. Having said that, performance isn't the be-all
and end-all, otherwise people would switch to whatever competing product
is fastest. There's loads of goodies within ActiveMQ that aren't in any
equivalent broker, and a lot of that value and work that's been done
ought to get carried over (replicated LevelDB as a random example). What
users want to see in whatever the next version of AMQ is, is the
features that they're currently using.
What I understand has always been the intent (from reading this mailing
list for some time) was that all the good bits get carried over to a new
core. If someone has already written a new core and donated it, as has
happened, that's awesome. What I'm seeing through the JIRAs is that
there are definitely two groups of distinct committers working on what
appears to be two products (hence the talk about incubation etc. - which
I hope ends up not happening). Splitting the HQ donation by name to a
new project, and maybe merging the two at some point, seems out of line
with the original intent and partitions the set of developers further.
Cross-project cooperation on something as complex as this is a nice but
ultimately unlikely-to-be-realised idea; under one name it has a strong
chance of working out. As Rob has pointed out, rewriting a core based on
the good ideas of HQ, would still require loads of work to get it do all
the things that the HQ core already does - and people/time to do it.
Assuming that there is consensus around these points (which there
doesn't sound like there necessarily is), the idea of a separate line of
development (as is currently taking place) with milestone releases
sounds like the way forward. What needs to support it from a community
point of view is:
* Clarity to users around what activity is going on (I get asked this
all the time). To that extent, a feature-compatibility table needs
to be drawn up and left on the wiki, that way at least from an
outsider's view you can see what the current state of play is and
what the future plans are.
* Publicly accessible architecture/developer documentation around the
HQ core. It's hard to contribute to a project that is "kindof like
the old thing, but completely different" with no pointers.
* Interoperability between the 2. At the network of brokers level at
the minimum (maybe already there - see my first point), and perhaps
the at the store level.
What I think makes sense in the future is that ActiveMQ 5 doesn't need
to go away, it stays in a kind of maintenance mode++, with the big new
features building on the newer core. I'm thinking a bit like what
happened with Struts 1.x relative to 2.x. The commits just dropped off
after a while, as the bulk of the work moved to the 2.x core (which also
came from an external donation - WebWork).
Whatever happens, I look forward to working with and contributing to
ActiveMQ in the future.
Jakub
On 28/03/15 21:09, Rob Davies wrote:
> Art - I hope these are the questions you thought haven't been answered. This is my POV only.
>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 18:58, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree with the presumption that ActiveMQ *needs* a *new* broker.
> I implemented the architecture for ActiveMQ 1.0 (before it was detonated to Apache) - and since then Hiram and I have pretty much alternated redesigning the broker with each major version. ActiveMQ 5 was designed primarily to address the use case that some users wanted really long term message persistence (hence the message cursor implementation).
> Message brokers get compared on a relative small set of features - which boil down to usually straight throughput and scalability. The ActiveMQ threading model is quiet heavy - there's a lot of context switching as commands are passed from top to storage - and a lot of synchronisation along the way. To compete on throughput and scalability - a revamp is required. Hiram wrote Apollo with the hope it would be ActiveMQ 6. Technically Apollo is really good - it has really efficient threading model, no sync points and is completely asynchronous. The reason Apollo didn't gain traction is because it was written in Scala - actually only a couple of folks attempted to get involved.
>
> So writing a new architecture isn't particularly hard - probably a few months - but making sure it can handle all the edge cases will take years. Adding a new feature or fixing a bug in ActiveMQ 5 can take weeks - and that's because of all the test cases you have to pass to ensure you don't introduce a new bug whilst "fixing" something. Tinkering around the edges of the broker is relatively straight forward however. I think it's true that only a small number of committers tackle broker issues in ActiveMQ 5.
>
> HornetQ is asynchronous, built on top of netty (so the TCP implementation is extremely fast) but more importantly it's been around for a while and looks mature - which is why I assume it looks appealing. All the hard work involved in bedding in a new architecture has been done.
>
>> Nor
>> with the argument that it will die out if it doesn't get one.
> I agree. users really seem to like ActiveMQ because it is so flexible! However, there are a lot of areas where I wish ActiveMQ played a bigger role - like infrastructure messaging or IoT - which is why Apollo was written wasn't it? It's a shame a lot of people were put of by Scala - me included. It's impossible to gauge what will happen to ActiveMQ, but there is demand for messaging that AotiveMQ isn't even considered - and I think that's a shame.
>
>> Whole-sale replacement is hard. I worked in a company that *still* uses
>> technology dating back to 1980 because several efforts to whole-sale replace
>> the existing platform failed. That approach is hard. Note that I am not
>> arguing that it's impossible, but this does make me concerned that even with
>> the AMQ-6 name, HornetQ may fail to replace ActiveMQ - even as it continues
>> as a completely successful product of its own.
>>
>> With all of that said, if it proves that ActiveMQ dies out without a new
>> broker, I am alright with that. As mentioned before, if HornetQ takes over
>> the market, I don't see that as a bad thing and look forward to the
>> opportunity to contribute there, or move on to other things.
> We have an opportunity to take the best of both implementations and make something compelling - and doing something bold gets attention - and we can grow a community of developers around that. It would be great if you could help drive that too.
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693983.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
Art - I hope these are the questions you thought haven't been answered. This is my POV only.
> On 27 Mar 2015, at 18:58, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
> I don't agree with the presumption that ActiveMQ *needs* a *new* broker.
I implemented the architecture for ActiveMQ 1.0 (before it was detonated to Apache) - and since then Hiram and I have pretty much alternated redesigning the broker with each major version. ActiveMQ 5 was designed primarily to address the use case that some users wanted really long term message persistence (hence the message cursor implementation).
Message brokers get compared on a relative small set of features - which boil down to usually straight throughput and scalability. The ActiveMQ threading model is quiet heavy - there's a lot of context switching as commands are passed from top to storage - and a lot of synchronisation along the way. To compete on throughput and scalability - a revamp is required. Hiram wrote Apollo with the hope it would be ActiveMQ 6. Technically Apollo is really good - it has really efficient threading model, no sync points and is completely asynchronous. The reason Apollo didn't gain traction is because it was written in Scala - actually only a couple of folks attempted to get involved.
So writing a new architecture isn't particularly hard - probably a few months - but making sure it can handle all the edge cases will take years. Adding a new feature or fixing a bug in ActiveMQ 5 can take weeks - and that's because of all the test cases you have to pass to ensure you don't introduce a new bug whilst "fixing" something. Tinkering around the edges of the broker is relatively straight forward however. I think it's true that only a small number of committers tackle broker issues in ActiveMQ 5.
HornetQ is asynchronous, built on top of netty (so the TCP implementation is extremely fast) but more importantly it's been around for a while and looks mature - which is why I assume it looks appealing. All the hard work involved in bedding in a new architecture has been done.
> Nor
> with the argument that it will die out if it doesn't get one.
I agree. users really seem to like ActiveMQ because it is so flexible! However, there are a lot of areas where I wish ActiveMQ played a bigger role - like infrastructure messaging or IoT - which is why Apollo was written wasn't it? It's a shame a lot of people were put of by Scala - me included. It's impossible to gauge what will happen to ActiveMQ, but there is demand for messaging that AotiveMQ isn't even considered - and I think that's a shame.
>
> Whole-sale replacement is hard. I worked in a company that *still* uses
> technology dating back to 1980 because several efforts to whole-sale replace
> the existing platform failed. That approach is hard. Note that I am not
> arguing that it's impossible, but this does make me concerned that even with
> the AMQ-6 name, HornetQ may fail to replace ActiveMQ - even as it continues
> as a completely successful product of its own.
>
> With all of that said, if it proves that ActiveMQ dies out without a new
> broker, I am alright with that. As mentioned before, if HornetQ takes over
> the market, I don't see that as a bad thing and look forward to the
> opportunity to contribute there, or move on to other things.
We have an opportunity to take the best of both implementations and make something compelling - and doing something bold gets attention - and we can grow a community of developers around that. It would be great if you could help drive that too.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693983.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I don't agree with the presumption that ActiveMQ *needs* a *new* broker. Nor
with the argument that it will die out if it doesn't get one.
Whole-sale replacement is hard. I worked in a company that *still* uses
technology dating back to 1980 because several efforts to whole-sale replace
the existing platform failed. That approach is hard. Note that I am not
arguing that it's impossible, but this does make me concerned that even with
the AMQ-6 name, HornetQ may fail to replace ActiveMQ - even as it continues
as a completely successful product of its own.
With all of that said, if it proves that ActiveMQ dies out without a new
broker, I am alright with that. As mentioned before, if HornetQ takes over
the market, I don't see that as a bad thing and look forward to the
opportunity to contribute there, or move on to other things.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693983.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Hey - it's clear we are not moving toward consensus right now. I'm going to
break off and give some time to hear from others and consider the entire
situation more carefully.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693991.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
That's what I'm getting from Hadrian and Art. I'm 100% sure that's not what they intend. I hope they can restate their concerns in a way that I can understand and that makes it clear that's not what they meant. One thing that would really help me would be to say what they do want rather than what they don't want.
I want activemq to have a clear path to a long term future with a scalable broker, with a community that is working together towards this goal, inclusive, and growing.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It’s more like “Railroading without consensus not welcome here”. No one is upset that someone is working too hard. Yet another completely ridiculous assertion.
>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:57 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> It certainly makes me feel like "innovation not welcome here" and "if we let you in, don't work too hard or we'll get upset"
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
It’s more like “Railroading without consensus not welcome here”. No one is upset that someone is working too hard. Yet another completely ridiculous assertion.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:57 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> It certainly makes me feel like "innovation not welcome here" and "if we let you in, don't work too hard or we'll get upset"
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
If activemq decides to never write a new scalable broker, it probably wouldn't be much more work, only duplicating new non-broker features in 2 places perhaps with code that could be adapted from one project to the other, but if it involves activemq eventually writing a new broker by itself, that's a lot more work…. enough so that no one has tried again in the last 5 years. I think that kicking out hornetQ won't help the community problems and will eventually make activemq a niche product. It certainly makes me feel like "innovation not welcome here" and "if we let you in, don't work too hard or we'll get upset". There might be community problems that desperately need attention, but I really don't think these are the messages you want to be sending, and they are the only ones I'm getting.
david jencks
On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:42 PM, "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good question, how is that more work for everyone? More choices, sure.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Really Jon?
>>
>> How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>>>
>>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
>>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>>
>>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>>> make more work for everyone...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>>> smooth migration path.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>>> become.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>>
>>>> project,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>>>>
>>>> This
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>>
>>>> project
>>>>>>
>>>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>>
>>>> accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>>>>
>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>>
>>>> affiliation -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>>
>>>> imported
>>>>>>
>>>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>>
>>>> of a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>>>>
>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Absolutely not. The activemq community works on one broker the HornetQ
one on another. Competition is good. If some developers choose, for
whatever reason I will not speculate on, to work on both, yes, it is
possible for them to do some extra work.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 02:47 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> Putting in new features and maintaining 2 separate brokers will be more
> work overall than just one. Surely you can agree with me on that? :-)
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good question, how is that more work for everyone? More choices, sure.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Really Jon?
>>>
>>> How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was
>> to
>>>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>>>
>>>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>>>> make more work for everyone...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <
>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>>>> smooth migration path.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>>>> become.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>>>
>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
>> version.
>>>>>
>>>>> This
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>>>
>>>>> project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without
>> the
>>>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>>>
>>>>> accusation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat
>> biased
>>>>>
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>>>
>>>>> affiliation -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>>>
>>>>> imported
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>>>
>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have
>> been
>>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call
>> it
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the
>> code
>>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Putting in new features and maintaining 2 separate brokers will be more
work overall than just one. Surely you can agree with me on that? :-)
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good question, how is that more work for everyone? More choices, sure.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Really Jon?
> >
> > How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
> >
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> >>
> >> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was
> to
> >> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
> >>
> >> "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."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
> >>
> >> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
> >> make more work for everyone...
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <
> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
> >>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
> >>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
> >>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
> >>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
> >>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
> >>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
> >>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
> >>> smooth migration path.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> >>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> >>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> >>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
> >>>>
> >>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> >>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> >>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> >>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> >>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> >>>> become.
> >>>>
> >>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> >>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> >>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> >>>>> heard.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
> >>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
> >>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
> >>>>>> perspective.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
> >>>
> >>> project,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
> version.
> >>>
> >>> This
> >>>>>
> >>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
> >>>
> >>> project
> >>>>>
> >>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without
> the
> >>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
> >>>
> >>> accusation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat
> biased
> >>>
> >>> on
> >>>>>
> >>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
> >>>
> >>> affiliation -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> an even more serious accusation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
> >>>
> >>> imported
> >>>>>
> >>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
> >>>
> >>> of a
> >>>>>
> >>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> >>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have
> been
> >>>>> suggested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call
> it
> >>>
> >>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
> >>>
> >>> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the
> code
> >>>
> >>> be
> >>>>>
> >>>>> taken to the incubator.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
---------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: janstey@redhat.com
Web: http://redhat.com
Twitter: jon_anstey
Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
Good question, how is that more work for everyone? More choices, sure.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really Jon?
>
> How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
>>
>> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
>> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>>
>> "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."
>>
>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>>
>> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
>> make more work for everyone...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>>> smooth migration path.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>>
>>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>>> become.
>>>>
>>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>>> heard.)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>>> the
>>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>
>>> project,
>>>>>
>>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>>>
>>> This
>>>>>
>>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>>>
>>> project
>>>>>
>>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>>>
>>> accusation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>>>
>>> on
>>>>>
>>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>
>>> affiliation -
>>>>>
>>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>
>>> imported
>>>>>
>>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>>>
>>> of a
>>>>>
>>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>>> that
>>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>>>
>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>>>
>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>>>
>>> be
>>>>>
>>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Really Jon?
How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>
> "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."
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>
> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
> make more work for everyone...
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>> smooth migration path.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>
>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>> become.
>>>
>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>> heard.)
>>>>
>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>> project,
>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>> This
>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>> project
>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>> accusation.
>>>>
>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>> on
>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>> affiliation -
>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>
>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>> imported
>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>> of a
>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>> the
>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>> that
>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>> be
>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
"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."
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
make more work for everyone...
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
wrote:
> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
> smooth migration path.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> wrote:
> > I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> > points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> > project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> > is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
> >
> > So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> > a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> > path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> > do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> > users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> > become.
> >
> > We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> > the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> >> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> >> heard.)
> >>
> >> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Chris,
> >>>
> >>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
> >>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
> >>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
> >>> perspective.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
> >> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
> project,
> >> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
> This
> >> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
> project
> >> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
> >> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
> accusation.
> >>
> >> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
> on
> >> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
> affiliation -
> >> an even more serious accusation.
> >>
> >> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
> imported
> >> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
> of a
> >> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
> >>
> >> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> >> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
> >> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
> >>
> >> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
> >> suggested.
> >>
> >> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
> >>
> >> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
> the
> >> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
> that
> >> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
> be
> >> taken to the incubator.)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hiram Chirino
> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
---------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: janstey@redhat.com
Web: http://redhat.com
Twitter: jon_anstey
Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route
for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established
community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why
HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
smooth migration path.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>
> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> become.
>
> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>> heard.)
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>>
>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on
>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation -
>> an even more serious accusation.
>>
>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported
>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a
>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>
>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>
>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>> suggested.
>>
>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>
>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the
>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that
>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be
>> taken to the incubator.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by jbertram <jb...@apache.org>.
Tracy Snell wrote
> This really should’ve been the first thing the HornetQ camp did when the
> push back happened. Insisting it should be 6.0 and all the surrounding
> debate would’ve been greatly reduced had this been the first response.
As I read the thread for the original donation it seemed clear to me that
the donation was accepted to be a replacement for ActiveMQ Apollo. In other
words, the donation would be the basis for the next generation of ActiveMQ.
In particular, it would consolidate many of the good things from ActiveMQ
5.x, Apollo, and HornetQ.
When it came time to determine where exactly the donation would be placed
the consensus was it should be placed in a repository called "activemq-6"
(or some equivalent). This was suggested and confirmed by people who did not
work on the donated code. I believe it was Richard Kettelerij that first
suggested this repo name. To be clear, there was a suggestion that the
donation might take the "Apollo" mantle since it was already deemed the next
generation of ActiveMQ, but that idea was specifically shot down. "ActiveMQ
6" was (at least to me) the clear consensus.
I understand that different people understood the donation differently.
That's fine. We all have different perspectives. However, I think it's
unfair to essentially say that "the HornetQ camp" insisted on it being
called ActiveMQ 6.0. Once the donation was made and stored in
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git way back on October
31 a handful of us familiar with the code-base worked in good faith to do
what we believed was the consensus (i.e. provide an initial release of
ActiveMQ 6).
When the first RC of "ActiveMQ 6" was cut the release naming was revisited
(this thread being a prime example). At that point I think it would have
improper for "the HornetQ camp" to make a blanket decision to rename it.
Some in the community understood the donation as I did, and they support it.
They want the donation to be ActiveMQ 6. It wouldn't make sense to ignore
those community members. Obviously, some understood the donation
differently and desire a different name. They shouldn't be ignored either.
I feel the resulting discussion (across all the various threads) has been
ultimately profitable and, in fact, was the only right way to handle the
situation. As I understand it, that is (at least in part) the "Apache Way."
As I see it, there's been no "railroading" as you suggested in another post.
Has there been misunderstanding and perhaps miscommunication? I'll
certainly grant that. Hopefully we're getting that sorted now.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693997.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
Name it and get it out there! This really should’ve been the first thing the HornetQ camp did when the push back happened. Insisting it should be 6.0 and all the surrounding debate would’ve been greatly reduced had this been the first response. Get it into shape where it’s the obvious choice. Slowly build the code and the support to where it’s the natural choice.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Lets get a “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to 6.0-m1)
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 03/27/2015 03:11 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
> Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just you that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to help. From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x. This is exactly the kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and all that. Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very little to change anything.
>
> Dan
>
+1 completely agree with Dan on this.
>> Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project. The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can still happen.
>>
>> Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of resolution will happen soon.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>> On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>
>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>> become.
>>>
>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>> heard.)
>>>>
>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>>>>
>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on
>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation -
>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>
>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported
>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a
>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the
>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that
>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be
>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>
>>>
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1000
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any
> convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
>
> Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just
> you that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing
> a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the
> “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to
> help. From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of
> getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a
> “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to
> 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting
> contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we
> can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x. This is exactly the
> kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and
> all that. Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very
> little to change anything.
>
> Dan
>
>
> > Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new
> kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project.
> The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a
> community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can
> still happen.
> >
> > Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both
> projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of
> resolution will happen soon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hadrian
> >
> > On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> >> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> >> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> >> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
> >>
> >> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> >> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> >> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> >> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> >> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> >> become.
> >>
> >> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> >> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> wrote:
> >>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> >>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> >>> heard.)
> >>>
> >>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
> >>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
> >>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
> >>>> perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
> the
> >>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
> project,
> >>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
> version. This
> >>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
> project
> >>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
> >>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
> accusation.
> >>>
> >>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
> on
> >>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
> affiliation -
> >>> an even more serious accusation.
> >>>
> >>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
> imported
> >>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
> of a
> >>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
> >>>
> >>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> >>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
> that
> >>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
> >>> suggested.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
> the
> >>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
> that
> >>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
> be
> >>> taken to the incubator.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
---------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: janstey@redhat.com
Web: http://redhat.com
Twitter: jon_anstey
Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Christian Posta <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Friday, March 27, 2015, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any
> convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
>
> Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just
> you that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing
> a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the
> “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to
> help. From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of
> getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a
> “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to
> 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting
> contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we
> can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x. This is exactly the
> kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and
> all that. Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very
> little to change anything.
>
> Dan
>
>
> > Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new
> kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project.
> The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a
> community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can
> still happen.
> >
> > Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both
> projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of
> resolution will happen soon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hadrian
> >
> > On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> >> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> >> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> >> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
> >>
> >> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> >> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> >> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> >> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> >> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> >> become.
> >>
> >> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> >> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> >>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> >>> heard.)
> >>>
> >>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
> >>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
> >>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
> >>>> perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
> the
> >>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
> project,
> >>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
> version. This
> >>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
> project
> >>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
> >>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
> accusation.
> >>>
> >>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
> on
> >>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
> affiliation -
> >>> an even more serious accusation.
> >>>
> >>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
> imported
> >>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
> of a
> >>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
> >>>
> >>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> >>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
> that
> >>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
> >>> suggested.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
> the
> >>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
> that
> >>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
> be
> >>> taken to the incubator.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com <javascript:;> - @rbowen
> >>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
--
*Christian Posta*
twitter: @christianposta
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
http://fabric8.io
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I can't agree more with Dan. +1000
On Friday, March 27, 2015, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any
> convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
>
> Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just
> you that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing
> a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the
> “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to
> help. From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of
> getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a
> “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to
> 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting
> contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we
> can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x. This is exactly the
> kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and
> all that. Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very
> little to change anything.
>
> Dan
>
>
> > Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new
> kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project.
> The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a
> community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can
> still happen.
> >
> > Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both
> projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of
> resolution will happen soon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hadrian
> >
> > On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> >> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> >> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> >> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
> >>
> >> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> >> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> >> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> >> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> >> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> >> become.
> >>
> >> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> >> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> >>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> >>> heard.)
> >>>
> >>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
> >>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
> >>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
> >>>> perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
> the
> >>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
> project,
> >>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
> version. This
> >>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
> project
> >>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
> >>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
> accusation.
> >>>
> >>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
> on
> >>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
> affiliation -
> >>> an even more serious accusation.
> >>>
> >>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
> imported
> >>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
> of a
> >>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
> >>>
> >>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> >>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
> that
> >>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
> >>> suggested.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
> the
> >>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
> that
> >>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
> be
> >>> taken to the incubator.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com <javascript:;> - @rbowen
> >>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Weiqi Gao <we...@gmail.com>.
From one "user"'s perspective:
I joined the list as soon as I learned of the code donation. I saw the
ActiveMQ6 guys hard at work and making a lot of progress. I saw the
ActiveMQ5 guys hard at work making fixes. I saw the "consensus" of
about merging the two code bases and communities in the thread from last
year. And I saw the ActiveMQ 6 name being proposed not by the former
HornetQ guys, but by a member of the then existing ActiveMQ community.
All good and harmony. Until the release vote, when six months of hard
work was done on the ActiveMQ6 repo.
I agree with Daniel Kulp and David Jencks on the general direction.
--
Weiqi Gao
On 3/27/2015 2:11 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
>
> Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just you that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to help. From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x. This is exactly the kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and all that. Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very little to change anything.
>
> Dan
>
>
>> Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project. The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can still happen.
>>
>> Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of resolution will happen soon.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>> On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>
>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>> become.
>>>
>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>> heard.)
>>>>
>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>>>>
>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on
>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation -
>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>
>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported
>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a
>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the
>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that
>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be
>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just you that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to help. From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x. This is exactly the kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and all that. Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very little to change anything.
Dan
> Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project. The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can still happen.
>
> Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of resolution will happen soon.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
> On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>
>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>> become.
>>
>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>> heard.)
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>>>
>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on
>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation -
>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>
>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported
>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a
>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>
>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>
>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>
>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the
>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that
>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be
>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>
>>
>>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Hiram,
That was exactly my recommendation a few days back, right? I had the
same view as Dan. Reduce the confusion, give the project time to mature,
give the new developers time to get a better understanding of the ASF,
once there is enough convergence we'll decide on something.
After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any
convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new
kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new
project. The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ,
grow a community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence
it can still happen.
Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both
projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of
resolution will happen soon.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>
> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
> become.
>
> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>> heard.)
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>>
>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on
>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation -
>> an even more serious accusation.
>>
>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported
>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a
>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>
>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>
>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>> suggested.
>>
>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>
>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the
>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that
>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be
>> taken to the incubator.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the
path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to
do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
become.
We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> heard.)
>
> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>> perspective.
>>
>
>
>
> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>
> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on
> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation -
> an even more serious accusation.
>
> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported
> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a
> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>
> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>
> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
> suggested.
>
> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>
> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the
> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that
> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be
> taken to the incubator.)
>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by oliverd <ol...@hotmail.com>.
Hi,
as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the
importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud,
IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create
a lot of momentum.
Personally, I don't get the point why having HornetQ as a subproject like
ActiveMQ Apollo is a problem - as I understand this was the original intent.
Did anyone bring up this point when Apollo was introduced?
I'm focused on the value for the users and would love to see HornetQ,
ActiveMQ emerge as one broker that can really compete going forward. Joining
forces makes a lot of sense to me. If projects get separated then
compatibility, migration topics might get less important.
Regards
Oliver
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694198.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by oliverd <ol...@hotmail.com>.
Hi,
as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the
importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud,
IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create
a lot of momentum.
Personally, I don't get the point why having HornetQ as a subproject like
ActiveMQ Apollo is a problem - as I understand this was the original intent.
Did anyone bring up this point when Apollo was introduced?
I'm focused on the value for the users and would love to see HornetQ,
ActiveMQ emerge as one broker that can really compete going forward. Joining
forces makes a lot of sense to me. If projects get separated then
compatibility, migration topics might get less important.
Best Regards,
Oliver
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694197.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Guggi <da...@gmail.com>.
hi,
I'm just amq-5.x user - neither involved in hornetq nor amq development.
However here are my 2cents (after following this thread):
- i think it's definitely the right way to have the donation named amq-6 -
I was excited when reading about this - as a user I'm glad to see amq
moving forward (for me that is definitely the correct message)...
- further - to me it seems that there is not really an issue with "two
communities" or a "community problem", but rather individual amp-pmcs/-devs
that stand in their own ways...
- i cannot understand pmc/committers to just make "noise" in threads like
this but now involving in current development (as this was obviously
"decided" already)...
as a community member, I'd be happy to see you guys all pull together - in
fact i'm surprised that (imho) something really valueable, like this
donation, can result in discussion like that...
but as i said, i don't have too much insight (in internals) :)
ty
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, David Jencks <
david_jencks@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> I'm really glad you guys haven't packed up and gone home :-)
>
> All the suggestions that result in the new broker staying within activemq
> are fine with me. In order to not predict the eventual version of the new
> broker, how about something like activemq-NB-1.0-M1 (new broker)? Then
> if/when it turns into trunk we can turn it into activemq-6.0.0 or
> activemq-10.0.0 or…. as appropriate.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > As the release manager of the initial release of ActiveMQ-6 I have kept
> up with this thread in hope that consensus would eventually be reached.
> Myself and the other folks actively contributing to ActiveMQ-6 would then
> be able to make the required changes and move forward. I'd really rather
> not kick up any more turf on this matter, but I'll just say that the folks
> working on HornetQ sent the original code grant email in good faith, we
> thought that by coming together we could achieve much more, we'd bring
> together not only two great pieces of software but also knowledge,
> experience and also, importantly, time and effort.
> >
> > In the original donation thread it was decided that ActiveMQ-6 would be
> the name for the project repository housing the code donation. This was not
> forced nor was it even suggested by the HornetQ developers, we just
> accepted the state of play and started work on getting things in place.
> Given the ActiveMQ-6 name for the repo myself and others (perhaps
> incorrectly) assumed that ActiveMQ 6.0.0 followed. There is nothing more to
> the initial release proposal than that, this is just how we understood what
> had been agreed. There is no hostile take over attempt by any ActiveMQ-6
> developers or any corporate bullish strategy that others have implied on
> this thread.
> >
> > I'd like to also say that myself and the other contributors to the
> ActiveMQ-6 project were very excited about the response to initial code
> grant. We took the bull by the horns and really put blood, sweat and tears
> into getting existing code base in shape. The last 5 months have been
> extremely hard work and we have achieved a great deal, I am extremely
> excited to get an inital release out in the open for people to evaluate and
> express their thoughts and views of the project. I'd love to make progress
> and finish what we had started in getting an initial release of the code
> base out in the open. It appears that there are others also excited about
> trying it out. So, let's pull together and get this thing out there.
> >
> > From what I have read thus far, that there are individuals in the
> community that that have very different view points, and opinions are not
> likely to be swayed completely to one side or the other. This is completely
> understandable and I can empathise.
> >
> > Personally, I have no affiliation to ActiveMQ 6.0.0 other than this is
> what I had understood had been agreed. To me, it also follows (and I
> realise that other have objected to this) that this would mean ActiveMQ-6
> would become the next generation of the ActiveMQ broker (Given that we are
> on the 5.x series now). There was obviously confusion, perhaps
> misunderstanding here.
> >
> >
> > I wonder, where do we go from here? There have been a couple of
> suggestions thus far that attempt to address some of the issues that have
> arisen in the thread:
> >
> > 1. Use a different project name akin to Apollo. This addresses some of
> the concerns that ActiveMQ-6 should not be positioned as the next
> generation of the existing broker. But also implies that the projects are
> still distinct, separate things, which perhaps, detracts from the original
> goal of the code donation email, which was an offer to join forces to
> create a unified, single great broker. In addition, from what I have read
> from Chris Mattmann, it appears that ASF are not keen on creating sub
> projects, which may end up rendering option 1. -> 3.
> >
> > 2. Put some clear daylight between the existing ActiveMQ broker and the
> version of the next initial release of the ActiveMQ-6 code base, whilst
> using milestone releases e.g. 10.0.0-M1. This approach addresses some of
> the concerns that ActiveMQ could never do another major release but work
> could continue on both code bases. However, this still implies that the
> ActiveMQ-6 core, would replace the existing core at some undecided point in
> the future.
> >
> > 3. Move the ActiveMQ-6 into incubator as a separate project. This does
> address the concerns of those that are against using the ActiveMQ-6 code
> base as the core. But seems to completely detract from the original goal
> of joining forces and creating a "one broker to rule them all" taking the
> best parts of ActiveMQ-6 (the core) and adding all the cool features from
> the existing ActiveMQ code base.
> >
> > Perhaps there are other suggestion that I have missed.
> >
> > To me, approaches 1. and 3. seem like they will inevitably result in
> ActiveMQ-6 becoming a separate, distinct project. Which goes against what
> we were really trying to achieve here, which was to unite and combine
> forces, this was the basic intent of the original code grant email. It
> would, in my opinion be a tragedy, if after the initial prospect of
> collaboration, months of hard work and the prospect of bringing the best
> pieces of both worlds, to create something even better, the projects parted
> and went their separate ways...
> >
> > In an attempt to pull things together and make progress. How would
> people feel if I proposed a release candidate based on suggestion 2. i.e.
> ActiveMQ 10.0.0-M1. We could use this "10 series" to move forward with
> combining the ActiveMQ existing features with the fast ActiveMQ-6 core and
> address migration. We could then decide as a community if and when a
> 10.0.0 release is in a suitable state to be release as the next generation?
> >
> > If people are not on board with this, what would you suggest? How can
> we move forward?
> >
> > Regards
> > Martyn
> >
> > On 30/03/15 05:23, David Jencks wrote:
> >> Hi Art,
> >>
> >> Thanks for trying to bring me back to earth :-)
> >>
> >> I think I understand a bit more of what you are concerned about, and
> your concerns are definitely worth discussing, although I think in some of
> your earlier posts we disagree a lot on what is going on.
> >>
> >> - name: I don't think anyone cares any more that formerly-hornetQ be
> called activemq-6 right now. I hope this would alleviate your concern that
> it will necessarily be the next activemq even if it doesn't work :-)
> >>
> >> - need for new broker: Other people have explained way better than I
> can why a new broker might greatly broaden where activemq could be used. I
> don't want to see activemq disadvantaged on say relatively slow processors
> with a lot of cores.
> >>
> >> - concern about backwards compatibility and getting into a no-migration
> bind. This is a big problem, and a big danger, and Raj seems to be saying
> it could take years to make it completely backwards compatible (hopefully
> not replicating bugs :-) However, if I understood his post correctly,
> activemq has already had 4 broker replacements and it's still going
> strong. So I don't see this as an insuperable obstacle.
> >>
> >> You've also said some things that don't match up with what it looks to
> me like is going on. I'm pretty sure you are more involved than I, so you
> might have more evidence, but I haven't seen it.
> >>
> >> - hornetQ is replacing activemq, rather than merging code into the
> existing activemq code base. I've tried to address this repeatedly. The
> only way I can imagine the integration working, since everything is
> attached to the broker, is to start with the new broker and add everything
> that isn't the broker to it, changing both as needed so it works. As far
> as I can tell this is exactly what is happening. What other plausible
> merge/integration strategy can you imagine? At the beginning of this
> process the new code repository is going to look like former-hornetq with
> the name changed. As bits get added it's going to look more and more like
> activemq 5 does now.
> >>
> >> - hornetQ is going to continue to exist as a separate messaging
> solution and entity. My understanding has always been 100% that the
> hornetQ intent is to merge the code bases, drop the hornetQ name, and not
> have any separate hornetQ code base, community, project, product…..
> >>
> >> Finally, I don't see what the board can offer for these questions, I
> think the community has to decide what it wants to do. There' might well
> be community problems and I'd expect the board to address those. Unless
> I'm wrong about the last point, hornetQ continuing as a separate project, I
> don't see any of these as community problems but rather technical decisions
> about the project direction.
> >>
> >> I sure hope we can continue with more communication and less noise :-)
> And I hope I haven't missed any concerns you regard as important.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >> On Mar 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> David - please go back and read my posts (user name artnaseef, full
> name
> >>> Arthur Naseef). I have repeated myself multiple times with concerns.
> And
> >>> there has not been constructive response to my concerns, nor to
> questions I
> >>> posed in an attempt to get clarity on the position that ActiveMQ needs
> a new
> >>> broker.
> >>>
> >>> It is disappointing because I know there is valid discussion there.
> >>>
> >>> I agree this thread contains much passion and input that is
> unactionable
> >>> (i.e. pure criticism), and that sucks because it will never serve to
> move
> >>> use forward, reach conclusion, nor build consensus. At the same time,
> it's
> >>> understandable and I recognize that I have inserted some myself. So
> let me
> >>> be the first to apologize. I'm sorry for statements that I've made
> which
> >>> have not been constructive.
> >>>
> >>> Getting back to the actionable concerns raised and finding a way to
> address
> >>> them going forward would be greatly appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> If you want me to rehash my concerns, then I'll do so, but I would
> prefer to
> >>> avoid repeating myself multiple times.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694024.html
> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I'm really glad you guys haven't packed up and gone home :-)
All the suggestions that result in the new broker staying within activemq are fine with me. In order to not predict the eventual version of the new broker, how about something like activemq-NB-1.0-M1 (new broker)? Then if/when it turns into trunk we can turn it into activemq-6.0.0 or activemq-10.0.0 or…. as appropriate.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> As the release manager of the initial release of ActiveMQ-6 I have kept up with this thread in hope that consensus would eventually be reached. Myself and the other folks actively contributing to ActiveMQ-6 would then be able to make the required changes and move forward. I'd really rather not kick up any more turf on this matter, but I'll just say that the folks working on HornetQ sent the original code grant email in good faith, we thought that by coming together we could achieve much more, we'd bring together not only two great pieces of software but also knowledge, experience and also, importantly, time and effort.
>
> In the original donation thread it was decided that ActiveMQ-6 would be the name for the project repository housing the code donation. This was not forced nor was it even suggested by the HornetQ developers, we just accepted the state of play and started work on getting things in place. Given the ActiveMQ-6 name for the repo myself and others (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that ActiveMQ 6.0.0 followed. There is nothing more to the initial release proposal than that, this is just how we understood what had been agreed. There is no hostile take over attempt by any ActiveMQ-6 developers or any corporate bullish strategy that others have implied on this thread.
>
> I'd like to also say that myself and the other contributors to the ActiveMQ-6 project were very excited about the response to initial code grant. We took the bull by the horns and really put blood, sweat and tears into getting existing code base in shape. The last 5 months have been extremely hard work and we have achieved a great deal, I am extremely excited to get an inital release out in the open for people to evaluate and express their thoughts and views of the project. I'd love to make progress and finish what we had started in getting an initial release of the code base out in the open. It appears that there are others also excited about trying it out. So, let's pull together and get this thing out there.
>
> From what I have read thus far, that there are individuals in the community that that have very different view points, and opinions are not likely to be swayed completely to one side or the other. This is completely understandable and I can empathise.
>
> Personally, I have no affiliation to ActiveMQ 6.0.0 other than this is what I had understood had been agreed. To me, it also follows (and I realise that other have objected to this) that this would mean ActiveMQ-6 would become the next generation of the ActiveMQ broker (Given that we are on the 5.x series now). There was obviously confusion, perhaps misunderstanding here.
>
>
> I wonder, where do we go from here? There have been a couple of suggestions thus far that attempt to address some of the issues that have arisen in the thread:
>
> 1. Use a different project name akin to Apollo. This addresses some of the concerns that ActiveMQ-6 should not be positioned as the next generation of the existing broker. But also implies that the projects are still distinct, separate things, which perhaps, detracts from the original goal of the code donation email, which was an offer to join forces to create a unified, single great broker. In addition, from what I have read from Chris Mattmann, it appears that ASF are not keen on creating sub projects, which may end up rendering option 1. -> 3.
>
> 2. Put some clear daylight between the existing ActiveMQ broker and the version of the next initial release of the ActiveMQ-6 code base, whilst using milestone releases e.g. 10.0.0-M1. This approach addresses some of the concerns that ActiveMQ could never do another major release but work could continue on both code bases. However, this still implies that the ActiveMQ-6 core, would replace the existing core at some undecided point in the future.
>
> 3. Move the ActiveMQ-6 into incubator as a separate project. This does address the concerns of those that are against using the ActiveMQ-6 code base as the core. But seems to completely detract from the original goal of joining forces and creating a "one broker to rule them all" taking the best parts of ActiveMQ-6 (the core) and adding all the cool features from the existing ActiveMQ code base.
>
> Perhaps there are other suggestion that I have missed.
>
> To me, approaches 1. and 3. seem like they will inevitably result in ActiveMQ-6 becoming a separate, distinct project. Which goes against what we were really trying to achieve here, which was to unite and combine forces, this was the basic intent of the original code grant email. It would, in my opinion be a tragedy, if after the initial prospect of collaboration, months of hard work and the prospect of bringing the best pieces of both worlds, to create something even better, the projects parted and went their separate ways...
>
> In an attempt to pull things together and make progress. How would people feel if I proposed a release candidate based on suggestion 2. i.e. ActiveMQ 10.0.0-M1. We could use this "10 series" to move forward with combining the ActiveMQ existing features with the fast ActiveMQ-6 core and address migration. We could then decide as a community if and when a 10.0.0 release is in a suitable state to be release as the next generation?
>
> If people are not on board with this, what would you suggest? How can we move forward?
>
> Regards
> Martyn
>
> On 30/03/15 05:23, David Jencks wrote:
>> Hi Art,
>>
>> Thanks for trying to bring me back to earth :-)
>>
>> I think I understand a bit more of what you are concerned about, and your concerns are definitely worth discussing, although I think in some of your earlier posts we disagree a lot on what is going on.
>>
>> - name: I don't think anyone cares any more that formerly-hornetQ be called activemq-6 right now. I hope this would alleviate your concern that it will necessarily be the next activemq even if it doesn't work :-)
>>
>> - need for new broker: Other people have explained way better than I can why a new broker might greatly broaden where activemq could be used. I don't want to see activemq disadvantaged on say relatively slow processors with a lot of cores.
>>
>> - concern about backwards compatibility and getting into a no-migration bind. This is a big problem, and a big danger, and Raj seems to be saying it could take years to make it completely backwards compatible (hopefully not replicating bugs :-) However, if I understood his post correctly, activemq has already had 4 broker replacements and it's still going strong. So I don't see this as an insuperable obstacle.
>>
>> You've also said some things that don't match up with what it looks to me like is going on. I'm pretty sure you are more involved than I, so you might have more evidence, but I haven't seen it.
>>
>> - hornetQ is replacing activemq, rather than merging code into the existing activemq code base. I've tried to address this repeatedly. The only way I can imagine the integration working, since everything is attached to the broker, is to start with the new broker and add everything that isn't the broker to it, changing both as needed so it works. As far as I can tell this is exactly what is happening. What other plausible merge/integration strategy can you imagine? At the beginning of this process the new code repository is going to look like former-hornetq with the name changed. As bits get added it's going to look more and more like activemq 5 does now.
>>
>> - hornetQ is going to continue to exist as a separate messaging solution and entity. My understanding has always been 100% that the hornetQ intent is to merge the code bases, drop the hornetQ name, and not have any separate hornetQ code base, community, project, product…..
>>
>> Finally, I don't see what the board can offer for these questions, I think the community has to decide what it wants to do. There' might well be community problems and I'd expect the board to address those. Unless I'm wrong about the last point, hornetQ continuing as a separate project, I don't see any of these as community problems but rather technical decisions about the project direction.
>>
>> I sure hope we can continue with more communication and less noise :-) And I hope I haven't missed any concerns you regard as important.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David - please go back and read my posts (user name artnaseef, full name
>>> Arthur Naseef). I have repeated myself multiple times with concerns. And
>>> there has not been constructive response to my concerns, nor to questions I
>>> posed in an attempt to get clarity on the position that ActiveMQ needs a new
>>> broker.
>>>
>>> It is disappointing because I know there is valid discussion there.
>>>
>>> I agree this thread contains much passion and input that is unactionable
>>> (i.e. pure criticism), and that sucks because it will never serve to move
>>> use forward, reach conclusion, nor build consensus. At the same time, it's
>>> understandable and I recognize that I have inserted some myself. So let me
>>> be the first to apologize. I'm sorry for statements that I've made which
>>> have not been constructive.
>>>
>>> Getting back to the actionable concerns raised and finding a way to address
>>> them going forward would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> If you want me to rehash my concerns, then I'll do so, but I would prefer to
>>> avoid repeating myself multiple times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694024.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
As the release manager of the initial release of ActiveMQ-6 I have kept
up with this thread in hope that consensus would eventually be reached.
Myself and the other folks actively contributing to ActiveMQ-6 would
then be able to make the required changes and move forward. I'd really
rather not kick up any more turf on this matter, but I'll just say that
the folks working on HornetQ sent the original code grant email in good
faith, we thought that by coming together we could achieve much more,
we'd bring together not only two great pieces of software but also
knowledge, experience and also, importantly, time and effort.
In the original donation thread it was decided that ActiveMQ-6 would be
the name for the project repository housing the code donation. This was
not forced nor was it even suggested by the HornetQ developers, we just
accepted the state of play and started work on getting things in place.
Given the ActiveMQ-6 name for the repo myself and others (perhaps
incorrectly) assumed that ActiveMQ 6.0.0 followed. There is nothing more
to the initial release proposal than that, this is just how we
understood what had been agreed. There is no hostile take over attempt
by any ActiveMQ-6 developers or any corporate bullish strategy that
others have implied on this thread.
I'd like to also say that myself and the other contributors to the
ActiveMQ-6 project were very excited about the response to initial code
grant. We took the bull by the horns and really put blood, sweat and
tears into getting existing code base in shape. The last 5 months have
been extremely hard work and we have achieved a great deal, I am
extremely excited to get an inital release out in the open for people to
evaluate and express their thoughts and views of the project. I'd love
to make progress and finish what we had started in getting an initial
release of the code base out in the open. It appears that there are
others also excited about trying it out. So, let's pull together and get
this thing out there.
From what I have read thus far, that there are individuals in the
community that that have very different view points, and opinions are
not likely to be swayed completely to one side or the other. This is
completely understandable and I can empathise.
Personally, I have no affiliation to ActiveMQ 6.0.0 other than this is
what I had understood had been agreed. To me, it also follows (and I
realise that other have objected to this) that this would mean
ActiveMQ-6 would become the next generation of the ActiveMQ broker
(Given that we are on the 5.x series now). There was obviously
confusion, perhaps misunderstanding here.
I wonder, where do we go from here? There have been a couple of
suggestions thus far that attempt to address some of the issues that
have arisen in the thread:
1. Use a different project name akin to Apollo. This addresses some of
the concerns that ActiveMQ-6 should not be positioned as the next
generation of the existing broker. But also implies that the projects
are still distinct, separate things, which perhaps, detracts from the
original goal of the code donation email, which was an offer to join
forces to create a unified, single great broker. In addition, from what
I have read from Chris Mattmann, it appears that ASF are not keen on
creating sub projects, which may end up rendering option 1. -> 3.
2. Put some clear daylight between the existing ActiveMQ broker and the
version of the next initial release of the ActiveMQ-6 code base, whilst
using milestone releases e.g. 10.0.0-M1. This approach addresses some
of the concerns that ActiveMQ could never do another major release but
work could continue on both code bases. However, this still implies
that the ActiveMQ-6 core, would replace the existing core at some
undecided point in the future.
3. Move the ActiveMQ-6 into incubator as a separate project. This does
address the concerns of those that are against using the ActiveMQ-6 code
base as the core. But seems to completely detract from the original
goal of joining forces and creating a "one broker to rule them all"
taking the best parts of ActiveMQ-6 (the core) and adding all the cool
features from the existing ActiveMQ code base.
Perhaps there are other suggestion that I have missed.
To me, approaches 1. and 3. seem like they will inevitably result in
ActiveMQ-6 becoming a separate, distinct project. Which goes against
what we were really trying to achieve here, which was to unite and
combine forces, this was the basic intent of the original code grant
email. It would, in my opinion be a tragedy, if after the initial
prospect of collaboration, months of hard work and the prospect of
bringing the best pieces of both worlds, to create something even
better, the projects parted and went their separate ways...
In an attempt to pull things together and make progress. How would
people feel if I proposed a release candidate based on suggestion 2.
i.e. ActiveMQ 10.0.0-M1. We could use this "10 series" to move forward
with combining the ActiveMQ existing features with the fast ActiveMQ-6
core and address migration. We could then decide as a community if and
when a 10.0.0 release is in a suitable state to be release as the next
generation?
If people are not on board with this, what would you suggest? How can
we move forward?
Regards
Martyn
On 30/03/15 05:23, David Jencks wrote:
> Hi Art,
>
> Thanks for trying to bring me back to earth :-)
>
> I think I understand a bit more of what you are concerned about, and your concerns are definitely worth discussing, although I think in some of your earlier posts we disagree a lot on what is going on.
>
> - name: I don't think anyone cares any more that formerly-hornetQ be called activemq-6 right now. I hope this would alleviate your concern that it will necessarily be the next activemq even if it doesn't work :-)
>
> - need for new broker: Other people have explained way better than I can why a new broker might greatly broaden where activemq could be used. I don't want to see activemq disadvantaged on say relatively slow processors with a lot of cores.
>
> - concern about backwards compatibility and getting into a no-migration bind. This is a big problem, and a big danger, and Raj seems to be saying it could take years to make it completely backwards compatible (hopefully not replicating bugs :-) However, if I understood his post correctly, activemq has already had 4 broker replacements and it's still going strong. So I don't see this as an insuperable obstacle.
>
> You've also said some things that don't match up with what it looks to me like is going on. I'm pretty sure you are more involved than I, so you might have more evidence, but I haven't seen it.
>
> - hornetQ is replacing activemq, rather than merging code into the existing activemq code base. I've tried to address this repeatedly. The only way I can imagine the integration working, since everything is attached to the broker, is to start with the new broker and add everything that isn't the broker to it, changing both as needed so it works. As far as I can tell this is exactly what is happening. What other plausible merge/integration strategy can you imagine? At the beginning of this process the new code repository is going to look like former-hornetq with the name changed. As bits get added it's going to look more and more like activemq 5 does now.
>
> - hornetQ is going to continue to exist as a separate messaging solution and entity. My understanding has always been 100% that the hornetQ intent is to merge the code bases, drop the hornetQ name, and not have any separate hornetQ code base, community, project, product…..
>
> Finally, I don't see what the board can offer for these questions, I think the community has to decide what it wants to do. There' might well be community problems and I'd expect the board to address those. Unless I'm wrong about the last point, hornetQ continuing as a separate project, I don't see any of these as community problems but rather technical decisions about the project direction.
>
> I sure hope we can continue with more communication and less noise :-) And I hope I haven't missed any concerns you regard as important.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
>> David - please go back and read my posts (user name artnaseef, full name
>> Arthur Naseef). I have repeated myself multiple times with concerns. And
>> there has not been constructive response to my concerns, nor to questions I
>> posed in an attempt to get clarity on the position that ActiveMQ needs a new
>> broker.
>>
>> It is disappointing because I know there is valid discussion there.
>>
>> I agree this thread contains much passion and input that is unactionable
>> (i.e. pure criticism), and that sucks because it will never serve to move
>> use forward, reach conclusion, nor build consensus. At the same time, it's
>> understandable and I recognize that I have inserted some myself. So let me
>> be the first to apologize. I'm sorry for statements that I've made which
>> have not been constructive.
>>
>> Getting back to the actionable concerns raised and finding a way to address
>> them going forward would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> If you want me to rehash my concerns, then I'll do so, but I would prefer to
>> avoid repeating myself multiple times.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694024.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Hi Art,
Thanks for trying to bring me back to earth :-)
I think I understand a bit more of what you are concerned about, and your concerns are definitely worth discussing, although I think in some of your earlier posts we disagree a lot on what is going on.
- name: I don't think anyone cares any more that formerly-hornetQ be called activemq-6 right now. I hope this would alleviate your concern that it will necessarily be the next activemq even if it doesn't work :-)
- need for new broker: Other people have explained way better than I can why a new broker might greatly broaden where activemq could be used. I don't want to see activemq disadvantaged on say relatively slow processors with a lot of cores.
- concern about backwards compatibility and getting into a no-migration bind. This is a big problem, and a big danger, and Raj seems to be saying it could take years to make it completely backwards compatible (hopefully not replicating bugs :-) However, if I understood his post correctly, activemq has already had 4 broker replacements and it's still going strong. So I don't see this as an insuperable obstacle.
You've also said some things that don't match up with what it looks to me like is going on. I'm pretty sure you are more involved than I, so you might have more evidence, but I haven't seen it.
- hornetQ is replacing activemq, rather than merging code into the existing activemq code base. I've tried to address this repeatedly. The only way I can imagine the integration working, since everything is attached to the broker, is to start with the new broker and add everything that isn't the broker to it, changing both as needed so it works. As far as I can tell this is exactly what is happening. What other plausible merge/integration strategy can you imagine? At the beginning of this process the new code repository is going to look like former-hornetq with the name changed. As bits get added it's going to look more and more like activemq 5 does now.
- hornetQ is going to continue to exist as a separate messaging solution and entity. My understanding has always been 100% that the hornetQ intent is to merge the code bases, drop the hornetQ name, and not have any separate hornetQ code base, community, project, product…..
Finally, I don't see what the board can offer for these questions, I think the community has to decide what it wants to do. There' might well be community problems and I'd expect the board to address those. Unless I'm wrong about the last point, hornetQ continuing as a separate project, I don't see any of these as community problems but rather technical decisions about the project direction.
I sure hope we can continue with more communication and less noise :-) And I hope I haven't missed any concerns you regard as important.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> David - please go back and read my posts (user name artnaseef, full name
> Arthur Naseef). I have repeated myself multiple times with concerns. And
> there has not been constructive response to my concerns, nor to questions I
> posed in an attempt to get clarity on the position that ActiveMQ needs a new
> broker.
>
> It is disappointing because I know there is valid discussion there.
>
> I agree this thread contains much passion and input that is unactionable
> (i.e. pure criticism), and that sucks because it will never serve to move
> use forward, reach conclusion, nor build consensus. At the same time, it's
> understandable and I recognize that I have inserted some myself. So let me
> be the first to apologize. I'm sorry for statements that I've made which
> have not been constructive.
>
> Getting back to the actionable concerns raised and finding a way to address
> them going forward would be greatly appreciated.
>
> If you want me to rehash my concerns, then I'll do so, but I would prefer to
> avoid repeating myself multiple times.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694024.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
David - please go back and read my posts (user name artnaseef, full name
Arthur Naseef). I have repeated myself multiple times with concerns. And
there has not been constructive response to my concerns, nor to questions I
posed in an attempt to get clarity on the position that ActiveMQ needs a new
broker.
It is disappointing because I know there is valid discussion there.
I agree this thread contains much passion and input that is unactionable
(i.e. pure criticism), and that sucks because it will never serve to move
use forward, reach conclusion, nor build consensus. At the same time, it's
understandable and I recognize that I have inserted some myself. So let me
be the first to apologize. I'm sorry for statements that I've made which
have not been constructive.
Getting back to the actionable concerns raised and finding a way to address
them going forward would be greatly appreciated.
If you want me to rehash my concerns, then I'll do so, but I would prefer to
avoid repeating myself multiple times.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694024.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:27 AM David Jencks
<da...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> great. I really can't tell what the naysayers are objecting to and so far
> they haven't explained in a way I can understand. I'm flailing around with
> wild suggestions in the hope they will clarify. Sorry I'm so dense.
>
Don't feel bad, I'm struggling a bit with the same point. It's like any
major architectural change within a code base. You're going to have people
who push back on the idea.
Personally, I don't understand what role the board is going to play in this
decision, nor what the outcome of such a decision means for AMQ and the ASF
in general.
John
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 28, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Mar 28, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If you hate red hat say so.
> >
> > I’m pretty sure Jim is a big RedHat fan. http://www.jimjag.com <
> http://www.jimjag.com/>
> >
> > I am too actually. I have a bunch of friends that work there and it’s
> obviously a great place to work and a company as a whole that I respect.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
great. I really can't tell what the naysayers are objecting to and so far they haven't explained in a way I can understand. I'm flailing around with wild suggestions in the hope they will clarify. Sorry I'm so dense.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 28, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 28, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> If you hate red hat say so.
>
> I’m pretty sure Jim is a big RedHat fan. http://www.jimjag.com <http://www.jimjag.com/>
>
> I am too actually. I have a bunch of friends that work there and it’s obviously a great place to work and a company as a whole that I respect.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 28, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> If you hate red hat say so.
I’m pretty sure Jim is a big RedHat fan. http://www.jimjag.com <http://www.jimjag.com/>
I am too actually. I have a bunch of friends that work there and it’s obviously a great place to work and a company as a whole that I respect.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I have really no idea what you are talking about. Could you provide concrete references and indicate in detail who is doing what?
Would you say this if HQ had been sponsored by some organization other than RedHat?
I continue to see this as an amazing opportunity for AMQ to get a bunch of skilled enthusiastic new contributors together with some much needed code that people in the existing community haven't managed to write for the last 5 years. Given that the broker is at the center of everything, I can't imagine another integration strategy other than what has been going on.
I'm getting really tired of the naysayers refusing to be explicit about exactly who has done what that they object to. If you hate red hat say so. If there's a community problem say exactly what you think it is and blame someone by name. As far as I'm concerned this is FUD without any attempt at documentation.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 28, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> What I don't like, from what I read, is almost virus-like
> attempt to make HQ into AMQ. Virus works by invading a cell
> and then using the cell itself to reproduce; the original cell
> is gone, all that remains is the virus (this is incredibly
> simplified, btw). It almost seems that the idea is, well, we
> can't control the development of AMQ, so let's stack the
> deck and make HQ the next version of AMQ and, shazam!, we now
> control the direction of an Apache TLP.
>
> Someone on the thread called it a hostile takeover; I fail
> to see how that interpretation is far from the mark.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by jbertram <jb...@apache.org>.
I'm not sure I follow you here, Jim. Both Andy and I have labored to clarify
the history of the donation. See here
<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693932.html>
and here
<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693997.html>
. In my mind, the facts of the matter paint a different picture than the
virus analogy you described.
Just for clarity's sake, here's a quick review with some additional details
to flesh out the timeline a bit:
1) July 8, 2014, discussion is kicked off regarding code donation. See
here
<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971.html>
. One initial thought is that the donated code would take the mantle of
ActiveMQ Apollo to be the next generation of ActiveMQ.
2) The donation is affirmed and welcomed.
3) The community consensus is to place the donated code into a git
repository named "activemq-6" (or some equivalent).
4) The Git repo https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git
is created and the donation is committed on October 31, 2014.
5) A JIRA project named "ACTIVEMQ6" is created.
6) Jenkins jobs "ActiveMQ6-Nightly-Regression-Test" and
"ActiveMQ6-PR-Build" are created.
7) GitHub pull-requests are sent and JIRAs are opened providing nearly
daily reminders on the dev-list that work on the "activemq-6" repository is
happening.
8) March 10, first RC of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is put up for vote. See
here
<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911.html>
. RC is voted down mainly due to catX dependency issue.
9) March 12, second RC of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is put up for vote. See
here
<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693119.html>
. RC is voted down due to another catX dependency issue and a few other
odds and ends.
10) March 17, third RC of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is put up for a vote. See
here
<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693345.html>
. RC naming is debated a bit. By March 23 consensus seems to be that
releases should be suffixed with a "-M#" to let users know ActiveMQ 6 isn't
yet a full replacement for ActiveMQ 5.x.
11) Later on March 23, for the first time to my knowledge broader concerns
about the code donation becoming ActiveMQ 6 are raised. The discussion
ensues across the whole community on different threads until now.
>From steps 1-10 (covering over 8 calendar months) there is no clear
objection that the donated code-base should not be the basis of the next
generation of ActiveMQ. The matter is discussed in the open with lots of
community members weighing in. From all I can see, the community consensus
was clear (at that time) and the work was done in good faith. Obviously new
opinions have come to light over the last week and so the RC vote was
cancelled and the discussion is moving forward. Again, the community
process is being honored. I don't see how the virus analogy applies or how
this could be characterized as a hostile takeover.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694075.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
> The board will not, and does not, tolerate outside
> influences impacting our internal decision making
> and development methods.
PUH-LEASE do not read ANYTHING into the above. It is a simple
catch-all reminder.
<nip-conspiracy-theory-paranoia-in-the-bud>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I have decided to not draft any email. There really is
no need.
The PMC is on task to provide a board report. It is
expected that the report will be open and honest
and present the board with the current projected
roadmap for AMQ5 and AMQ6 going forward. It is
expected that this report will be based on facts
and consensus-based discussions within the PMC
and the community. It is also expected that the
report itself will note any and all points of view
within the PMC; I encourage all PMC members to ensure
that your individual PoV is represented at some level
in that report.
The board will not, and does not, tolerate outside
influences impacting our internal decision making
and development methods.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Just a quick FYI:
I have reached out to Red Hat (w/ my ASF hat one) via Mark Little
and Dave Ingham. Both have been *extremely* open, eager and honest
w/ me. I plan on writing up a quick summary of my thoughts and
our conversations and maybe suggest some ways of moving forward.
Sometimes our biases, and past history, can color our interpretations
of events and actions and, to be short, I firmly believe that that
has been a factor here.
As I draft my email, I encourage a short reprieve :)
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
+1
(Please pardon my reference to Buddhism here)
In buddhist practice, we remind ourselves of many things every time we
practice. One of those is stated this way, "forgive me for divisive
actions," and, "I promise to avoid divisive actions." We all do it, whether
with intent or not, but in the long run, it only leads to anger,
frustration, ... Suffering.
All the heated arguments here that attack all the value of all the great
work of the past done by the folks on this project is truly sad. I only
hope that there are enough folks either not listening, or believing that
this is just one large "vent" so this conversation doesn't drive folks away
from ActiveMQ.
A culture of respect and honest interest in technical concerns, impacts on
users and others across the community, and a focus on moving things forward
-- that's a vision I dream of when I think of being a core member of the
ActiveMQ community. I long for more discussions like ones I have had with
Hadrian - in which we actually talk about ideas and work together to make a
solution better than either one of us would have made alone. It's awesome.
I highly recommend everyone to try it.
Please move past the fighting. Every foolish thing any one of us has ever
said can be forgiven. Every one here is valuable, and can bring that value
to ActiveMQ - it's our actions and the impact they have on ActiveMQ - both
the product and the community - that are our measure. Let's strive for the
ideal - working together (not without disagreement) - bringing out valid
concerns and providing valid responses, considering impacts and deciding
which to accept, and how to minimize where possible. Then work toward
resolution through decision-making and acceptance that no path forward will
be perfect, and all paths forward that are worth taking require effort -
true effort.
With this said, I'm going back to focusing on other parts of my life at the
moment as this entire discussion has drained so much of my energy for a week
or two, and those parts have been neglected. Please PM me if my input is
valuable and desired, or my absence is somehow blocking, before I return
more prominently (probably after ApacheCon), when it will be time to get the
next patch release of ActiveMQ built (I will do all the grunt work, although
help is appreciated - thanks to Hadrian again for his past help in creating
releases)!
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694603.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:51:31AM +0200, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> 2015-04-09 3:59 GMT+02:00 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>:
>
> > I am trying to understand the picture that has been painted for us thus
> > far. Maybe you can help me. First of all, the argument for why we need to
> > start from the HornetQ code base is because the current core broker is in
> > such disrepair that we can't fix it (and some feel that we should thank our
> > lucky stars these guys came along when they did to save us all from our own
> > incompetence). Now we are being told that our opinions really shouldn't
> > matter and we should just blindly trust the folks who made it that way
> > (they wrote most of the code, right) when they tell us that this is the
> > right thing to do for the future of ActiveMQ?
> >
>
> I'm simply trying to make a point about *my* opinion (I don't think I've
> ever said
> *we* or anything like that would lead people to think *my* opinion is the
> only
> valid one).
No. You haven't stated it that way, that I recall. But you have
implied that. I've seen this "technique" of argument used here at the
ASF over the past 15+ years. Some kind of bullshit argument, then the
person gets called on it, and they respond "oh, that's not really what
I meant", and weasel out of any single bad action. But the *summation*
of their interactions is destructive. I've seen this over and over.
Given the years and years of watching people try this, it becomes
rapidly apparent when they use this approach. I have a long memory for
people who do this, Guillaume.
At the core, it is a technique used to divide. Always has been. I've
seen it destroy Apache communities. Literally. Needless to say, it
makes me very angry.
Just stop with the history. Stop with the blame. Pick a codename, and
never mention HornetQ again. Get the *whole* community involved in the
new codebase (the commit statistics suck, on this newly-arrived code).
Then get a release out under that new name. Get some feedback.
When the community can produce a release, and start working with users
around that release... it will bring you all together. And give you
something to evaluate for a future path.
-g
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
See Guillaume, it is precisely this attitude that created the problem in
the first place.
One of the first things developers learn in the incubator is that it's
not their project any longer, it's an ASF project. And the ASF has some
very clear values, backed by years of experience. One of them is diversity.
You are saying that those who made the initial contribution, wrote 90%
of the code, they know better and should be trusted whenever they feel
like it to replace the project with another one, because, well, the
current one "will soon be abandoned for lack of committers". Never mind
that the current PMC never bothered to bring in committers with
interests different than theirs and is constantly trying to control vs
grow the community. What you are saying is that you already decided to
move to the new one, hornetq, you just want to keep the brand.
I am looking forward to having a chat at apachecon next week with the
HornetQ folks who will show up (if they want to) and expose a side of
the ASF they were not introduced to at the Fuse water cooler. (There are
awesome ASFers at RH, I bet they were not consulted.) Hopefully they
will understand why my proposal is meant to make them successful, in the
same way that my initial proposal for the project rename was intended to
give the hornetq community time to mature. I hope to have a (positive)
influence on their understanding of the situation.
Best,
Hadrian
On 04/08/2015 06:44 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> 2015-04-08 22:52 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>
>> This isn’t a flame war, and you continue to state things about
>> what’s going to be maintained and what’s not, and it’s not backed
>> by fact. Some comments below:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>
>>
>>> [..]
>>> In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
>>> clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
>>> they all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
>>> one, I don't see why I should give it
>>> any more second thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
>>> having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon
>>> abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker.
>>> Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I
>>> certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on
>>> activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker
>>> are willing to work on it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
>> by the data. It doesn’t support that.
>
>
>> From reporter.apache.org:
>>
>> The project is frequently releasing code:
>> from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
>> (5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
>> (5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
>> from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
>> (5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
>> (5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
>> (4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
>>
>> 256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
>>
>
> Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-)
> Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ project
> ?
>
> That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core broker*
> code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining
> the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols,
> persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs.
> When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core
> components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation
> (see earlier points made by David Jencks).
>
> So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*. The
> attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February
> 2009. This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode
> since a few years.
>
> I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people
> suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong as
> I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics.
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
>>>> not make any sense to me.
>>>> So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
>>>> currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
>>>> activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gary,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
>>>>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
>>>>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
>>>>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>>>>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
>>>>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
>>>>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
>>>>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
>>>>> needs to be made.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
>>>>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
>>>>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
>>>>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
>>>>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
>>>>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
>>>>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
>>>>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>>>>>
>>>>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
>>>>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
>>>>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
>>>>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
>>>>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
>>>>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>> on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>>>>>> that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>>>>>> having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
>>>>>> we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>>>>>> to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>> Gary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>>>>>>> community needs to address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>>>>>>> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>>>>>>> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>>>>>>> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
>>>>>>> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
>>>>>>> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>>>>>>> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
>>>>>>> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
>>>>> hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
>>>>>>> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
>>>>> into
>>>>>>> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
>>>>> project
>>>>>>> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
>>>>>>> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>>>>>>> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>>>>>>> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>>>>>>> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
>>>>>>> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
>>>>>>> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>>>>>>> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
>>>>>>> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>>>>>>> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>>>>>>> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
>>>>> <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
>>>>> individual"
>>>>>>>> using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
>>>>> again,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> "Chris, the individual".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>> concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
>>>>> note.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Greg Stein
>>>>>>>> ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>>>>>>>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>>>>>>>>> project and community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As such:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
>>>>> umbrella
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together,
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
>>>>> struggle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>>>>>>>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
>>>>> pro-active
>>>>>>>>> action is required by the board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>>>>>>>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
2015-04-09 3:59 GMT+02:00 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>:
> I am trying to understand the picture that has been painted for us thus
> far. Maybe you can help me. First of all, the argument for why we need to
> start from the HornetQ code base is because the current core broker is in
> such disrepair that we can't fix it (and some feel that we should thank our
> lucky stars these guys came along when they did to save us all from our own
> incompetence). Now we are being told that our opinions really shouldn't
> matter and we should just blindly trust the folks who made it that way
> (they wrote most of the code, right) when they tell us that this is the
> right thing to do for the future of ActiveMQ?
>
I'm simply trying to make a point about *my* opinion (I don't think I've
ever said
*we* or anything like that would lead people to think *my* opinion is the
only
valid one).
I personally don't feel I have the knowledge to judge whether the current
broker
can be evolved into a next generation non-blocking broker. I also don't
have the
time and will to improve that knowledge up to the point I could can form my
own
opinion on this technical issue.
Software technologies do evolve, so implying the current architecture is
bad now
so that the people that wrote it years ago are to blame for it does not
look like a
valid argument to me. That's judging past decisions in the light of the
present
knowledge and possibilities.
>
> Now, please don't take this as my opinion. I have nothing but respect for
> the folks you mentioned as well as the other folks who have contributed to
> this project. I'm just trying to point out how the arguments seem to
> contradict one another.
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think most of the code has been written over the years by James, Rob,
> > Hiram, Garry, Dejan and Tim. I can't speak for them, but I don't recall
> > having read anything from them that could lead me to believe they were in
> > any way reluctant about replacing the activemq broker with the one from
> the
> > hornetq donation. Rather the opposite, and I certainly trust them on the
> > technical side...
> >
> > 2015-04-08 22:33 GMT+02:00 Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Who are in the 90% club and are they really all on board with the new
> > > broker?
> > >
> > > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> > > > clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and
> when
> > > they
> > > > all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
> > one,
> > > I
> > > > don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
I am trying to understand the picture that has been painted for us thus
far. Maybe you can help me. First of all, the argument for why we need to
start from the HornetQ code base is because the current core broker is in
such disrepair that we can't fix it (and some feel that we should thank our
lucky stars these guys came along when they did to save us all from our own
incompetence). Now we are being told that our opinions really shouldn't
matter and we should just blindly trust the folks who made it that way
(they wrote most of the code, right) when they tell us that this is the
right thing to do for the future of ActiveMQ?
Now, please don't take this as my opinion. I have nothing but respect for
the folks you mentioned as well as the other folks who have contributed to
this project. I'm just trying to point out how the arguments seem to
contradict one another.
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think most of the code has been written over the years by James, Rob,
> Hiram, Garry, Dejan and Tim. I can't speak for them, but I don't recall
> having read anything from them that could lead me to believe they were in
> any way reluctant about replacing the activemq broker with the one from the
> hornetq donation. Rather the opposite, and I certainly trust them on the
> technical side...
>
> 2015-04-08 22:33 GMT+02:00 Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Who are in the 90% club and are they really all on board with the new
> > broker?
> >
> > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> > > clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
> > they
> > > all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
> one,
> > I
> > > don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts.
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
I think most of the code has been written over the years by James, Rob,
Hiram, Garry, Dejan and Tim. I can't speak for them, but I don't recall
having read anything from them that could lead me to believe they were in
any way reluctant about replacing the activemq broker with the one from the
hornetq donation. Rather the opposite, and I certainly trust them on the
technical side...
2015-04-08 22:33 GMT+02:00 Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>:
> Who are in the 90% club and are they really all on board with the new
> broker?
>
> > On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> > clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
> they
> > all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 one,
> I
> > don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
Who are in the 90% club and are they really all on board with the new broker?
> On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when they
> all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 one, I
> don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
2015-04-09 6:50 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> Hi Guillaume,
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:44 PM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
> >>[..snip..]
> >>
> >> The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
> >> by the data. It doesn’t support that.
> >
> >
> >> From reporter.apache.org:
> >>
> >> The project is frequently releasing code:
> >> from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
> >> (5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
> >> (5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
> >> from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
> >> (5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
> >> (5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
> >> (4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
> >>
> >> 256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
> >>
> >
> >Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-)
> >Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ
> >project
> >?
> >
> >That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core
> >broker*
> >code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining
> >the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols,
> >persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs.
> >When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core
> >components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation
> >(see earlier points made by David Jencks).
>
> And this is the precise point I’m trying to make. You can couch these
> things
> in architectural components all you want, but the fact of the matter is
> that Apache projects are more than their singular components. You can
> claim that
> you were only talking about the “core broker”, and that’s the thing that
> would be “soon [sic] abandoned for a lack of committers working on the
> core
> broker.” The thing is whether it’s the ASF or not what you will find
> developing
> open source code for a long time is that certain parts of the code are
> abandoned.
> That happens in a long living project. New parts come in. The abandoned
> parts
> are picked by up again. This is the nature of software. Knowing this is the
> nature of software is the reason that there is a PMC and not a “set of
> software
> developers” in each committee at the ASF. The PMC’s job and role is to
> steward
> the software - the board doesn’t care about things like parts of the code
> being
> abandoned and dying, etc. - these are reported each month in board reports
> (
> ideally). The board cares about wholesale imports of codes from external
> sources that have the perceived impact of abusing names, community
> goodwill,
> and appear to be dominated by a lack of diversity on the PMC.
>
> However, this is much more than simply a certain part of the code being
> abandoned.
> You and others continue to make the “crutch” that without the HornetQ
> donation
> that Apache ActiveMQ’s contributors would dry up and the project would be
> at risk [implied]. My point in presenting the metrics to you and others is
> that I highly doubt in my own long running experience at the ASF that a
> project
> that has been releasing as actively and with such activity would suddenly
> dry
> up on that activity. In fact, I know if the PMC was doing its job it
> wouldn’t.
> For example, releases are typically necessitated either by community
> want/desire
> and/or developer itch to scratch. If it’s the community end then there
> appears
> to be community desire around more than simply the broker that is in
> question;
> aka there are other parts of ActiveMQ; if it’s developer itch/scratch then
> similarly the broker appears to not be the only reason that ActiveMQ is
> released since there have been so many recently.
>
> >
> >So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*. The
> >attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February
> >2009. This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode
> >since a few years.
>
> But the thing is - there is more to ActiveMQ than the core broker.
> Otherwise
> there wouldn’t have been a release in those few years, no?
>
Exactly. And I don't think anyone proposed to ditch activemq 5 completely.
It seems to me the plan was to bring the activemq5 components into
the new code base so that merging the best of both worlds would lead
to a larger community and a better software at the end.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> >
> >I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people
> >suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong
> >as
> >I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Cheers,
> >> >Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply
> >>does
> >> >>not make any sense to me.
> >> >>So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the
> >>code
> >> >>currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named,
> >>either
> >> >>activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this
> >>point.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hi Gary,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
> >> >>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
> >> >>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
> >> >>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
> >> >>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version
> >>6.x.x)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
> >> >>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
> >> >>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current
> >>HornetQ
> >> >>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that.
> >>Decision
> >> >>> needs to be made.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
> >> >>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
> >> >>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
> >> >>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
> >> >>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
> >> >>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
> >> >>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the
> >>due
> >> >>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
> >> >>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
> >> >>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
> >> >>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
> >> >>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers,
> >> >>> Chris
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> >>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
> >> >>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> >>> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >Hi Chris,
> >> >>> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
> >> >>> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
> >> >>> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant
> >>that
> >> >>> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all
> >>references
> >> >>> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >cheers,
> >> >>> >Gary.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> >>wrote:
> >> >>> >> Hi Everyone,
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the
> >>ActiveMQ
> >> >>> >> community needs to address.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
> >> >>> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
> >> >>> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
> >> >>> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache
> >>and
> >> >>> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products
> >>into
> >> >>> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their
> >>external
> >> >>> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If
> >>HornetQ
> >> >>> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
> >> >>>hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
> >> >>> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next
> >>board
> >> >>> >> report.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
> >> >>> >>community
> >> >>> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out
> >>HornetQ
> >> >>>into
> >> >>> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
> >> >>>project
> >> >>> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice
> >>must
> >> >>> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
> >> >>> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
> >> >>> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the
> >>current
> >> >>> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest
> >>having
> >> >>> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
> >> >>> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
> >> >>> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the
> >>above
> >> >>> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
> >> >>> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Cheers,
> >> >>> >> Chris
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> >>> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
> >> >>> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
> >> >>><de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
> >> >>>individual"
> >> >>> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation,
> >>and
> >> >>>to
> >> >>> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
> >> >>>again,
> >> >>> >>>as
> >> >>> >>>"Chris, the individual".
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have
> >>been
> >> >>>the
> >> >>> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
> >> >>>specific
> >> >>> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
> >> >>>note.
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>Regards,
> >> >>> >>>Greg Stein
> >> >>> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue
> >>which
> >> >>> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
> >> >>> >>>> project and community.
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>> As such:
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
> >> >>> >>>>ActiveMQ.
> >> >>> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
> >> >>>umbrella
> >> >>> >>>>of
> >> >>> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
> >> >>>another
> >> >>> >>>>is
> >> >>> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to
> >>start
> >> >>>off
> >> >>> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow
> >>together,
> >> >>>has
> >> >>> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
> >> >>>struggle.
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The
> >>job
> >> >>>of
> >> >>> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly
> >>that
> >> >>>job
> >> >>> >>>>is
> >> >>> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and
> >>strongly
> >> >>> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
> >> >>>pro-active
> >> >>> >>>> action is required by the board.
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
> >> >>>and a
> >> >>> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious
> >>project,
> >> >>> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>>...
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Guillaume,
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:44 PM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>[..snip..]
>>
>> The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
>> by the data. It doesn’t support that.
>
>
>> From reporter.apache.org:
>>
>> The project is frequently releasing code:
>> from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
>> (5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
>> (5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
>> from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
>> (5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
>> (5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
>> (4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
>>
>> 256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
>>
>
>Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-)
>Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ
>project
>?
>
>That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core
>broker*
>code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining
>the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols,
>persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs.
>When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core
>components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation
>(see earlier points made by David Jencks).
And this is the precise point I’m trying to make. You can couch these
things
in architectural components all you want, but the fact of the matter is
that Apache projects are more than their singular components. You can
claim that
you were only talking about the “core broker”, and that’s the thing that
would be “soon [sic] abandoned for a lack of committers working on the
core
broker.” The thing is whether it’s the ASF or not what you will find
developing
open source code for a long time is that certain parts of the code are
abandoned.
That happens in a long living project. New parts come in. The abandoned
parts
are picked by up again. This is the nature of software. Knowing this is the
nature of software is the reason that there is a PMC and not a “set of
software
developers” in each committee at the ASF. The PMC’s job and role is to
steward
the software - the board doesn’t care about things like parts of the code
being
abandoned and dying, etc. - these are reported each month in board reports
(
ideally). The board cares about wholesale imports of codes from external
sources that have the perceived impact of abusing names, community
goodwill,
and appear to be dominated by a lack of diversity on the PMC.
However, this is much more than simply a certain part of the code being
abandoned.
You and others continue to make the “crutch” that without the HornetQ
donation
that Apache ActiveMQ’s contributors would dry up and the project would be
at risk [implied]. My point in presenting the metrics to you and others is
that I highly doubt in my own long running experience at the ASF that a
project
that has been releasing as actively and with such activity would suddenly
dry
up on that activity. In fact, I know if the PMC was doing its job it
wouldn’t.
For example, releases are typically necessitated either by community
want/desire
and/or developer itch to scratch. If it’s the community end then there
appears
to be community desire around more than simply the broker that is in
question;
aka there are other parts of ActiveMQ; if it’s developer itch/scratch then
similarly the broker appears to not be the only reason that ActiveMQ is
released since there have been so many recently.
>
>So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*. The
>attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February
>2009. This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode
>since a few years.
But the thing is - there is more to ActiveMQ than the core broker.
Otherwise
there wouldn’t have been a release in those few years, no?
Cheers,
Chris
>
>I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people
>suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong
>as
>I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics.
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply
>>does
>> >>not make any sense to me.
>> >>So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the
>>code
>> >>currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named,
>>either
>> >>activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this
>>point.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Gary,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
>> >>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
>> >>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
>> >>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>> >>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version
>>6.x.x)
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
>> >>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
>> >>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current
>>HornetQ
>> >>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that.
>>Decision
>> >>> needs to be made.
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
>> >>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>> >>>
>> >>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
>> >>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
>> >>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
>> >>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
>> >>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
>> >>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the
>>due
>> >>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>> >>>
>> >>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
>> >>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
>> >>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
>> >>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
>> >>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Chris
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> >>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
>> >>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >>> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> >>>
>> >>> >Hi Chris,
>> >>> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>> >>> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>> >>> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant
>>that
>> >>> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all
>>references
>> >>> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >cheers,
>> >>> >Gary.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>>wrote:
>> >>> >> Hi Everyone,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the
>>ActiveMQ
>> >>> >> community needs to address.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>> >>> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>> >>> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>> >>> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache
>>and
>> >>> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products
>>into
>> >>> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their
>>external
>> >>> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If
>>HornetQ
>> >>> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
>> >>>hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
>> >>> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next
>>board
>> >>> >> report.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>> >>> >>community
>> >>> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out
>>HornetQ
>> >>>into
>> >>> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
>> >>>project
>> >>> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice
>>must
>> >>> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>> >>> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>> >>> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the
>>current
>> >>> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest
>>having
>> >>> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
>> >>> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>> >>> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the
>>above
>> >>> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>> >>> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Cheers,
>> >>> >> Chris
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >>> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>> >>> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
>> >>><de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
>> >>>individual"
>> >>> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation,
>>and
>> >>>to
>> >>> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
>> >>>again,
>> >>> >>>as
>> >>> >>>"Chris, the individual".
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have
>>been
>> >>>the
>> >>> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
>> >>>specific
>> >>> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
>> >>>note.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>Regards,
>> >>> >>>Greg Stein
>> >>> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue
>>which
>> >>> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>> >>> >>>> project and community.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> As such:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
>> >>> >>>>ActiveMQ.
>> >>> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
>> >>>umbrella
>> >>> >>>>of
>> >>> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
>> >>>another
>> >>> >>>>is
>> >>> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to
>>start
>> >>>off
>> >>> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow
>>together,
>> >>>has
>> >>> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
>> >>>struggle.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The
>>job
>> >>>of
>> >>> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly
>>that
>> >>>job
>> >>> >>>>is
>> >>> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and
>>strongly
>> >>> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
>> >>>pro-active
>> >>> >>>> action is required by the board.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
>> >>>and a
>> >>> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious
>>project,
>> >>> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>...
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Guggi <da...@gmail.com>.
exaclty my point also - when i read chris' response...
no offend, but contribution like this is ... - Period. (imho it even
contributes to "flame war")
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> 2015-04-08 22:52 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>
> > This isn’t a flame war, and you continue to state things about
> > what’s going to be maintained and what’s not, and it’s not backed
> > by fact. Some comments below:
> >
> >
> > [...]
>
> >
> > >[..]
> > >In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> > >clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
> > >they all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
> > >one, I don't see why I should give it
> > > any more second thoughts.
> > >
> > >
> > >I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming
> and
> > >having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon
> > >abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker.
> > >Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I
> > > certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on
> > >activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker
> > >are willing to work on it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
> > by the data. It doesn’t support that.
>
>
> > From reporter.apache.org:
> >
> > The project is frequently releasing code:
> > from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
> > (5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
> > (5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
> > from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
> > (5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
> > (5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
> > (4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
> >
> > 256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
> >
>
> Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-)
> Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ project
> ?
>
> That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core
> broker*
> code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining
> the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols,
> persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs.
> When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core
> components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation
> (see earlier points made by David Jencks).
>
> So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*. The
> attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February
> 2009. This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode
> since a few years.
>
> I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people
> suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong as
> I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics.
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply
> does
> > >>not make any sense to me.
> > >>So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the
> code
> > >>currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named,
> either
> > >>activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this
> point.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Gary,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
> > >>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
> > >>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
> > >>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
> > >>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
> > >>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
> > >>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
> > >>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
> > >>> needs to be made.
> > >>>
> > >>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
> > >>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
> > >>>
> > >>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
> > >>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
> > >>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
> > >>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
> > >>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
> > >>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
> > >>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
> > >>>
> > >>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
> > >>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
> > >>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
> > >>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
> > >>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Chris
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> > >>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> > >>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
> > >>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> > >>> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
> > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> > >>>
> > >>> >Hi Chris,
> > >>> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
> > >>> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
> > >>> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant
> that
> > >>> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all
> references
> > >>> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >cheers,
> > >>> >Gary.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>> >> Hi Everyone,
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the
> ActiveMQ
> > >>> >> community needs to address.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
> > >>> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
> > >>> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
> > >>> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
> > >>> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
> > >>> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their
> external
> > >>> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If
> HornetQ
> > >>> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
> > >>>hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
> > >>> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
> > >>> >> report.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
> > >>> >>community
> > >>> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
> > >>>into
> > >>> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
> > >>>project
> > >>> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
> > >>> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
> > >>> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
> > >>> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
> > >>> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest
> having
> > >>> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
> > >>> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
> > >>> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the
> above
> > >>> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
> > >>> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Cheers,
> > >>> >> Chris
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
> > >>> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> > >>> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
> > >>> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
> > >>><de...@activemq.apache.org>
> > >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
> > >>>individual"
> > >>> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation,
> and
> > >>>to
> > >>> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
> > >>>again,
> > >>> >>>as
> > >>> >>>"Chris, the individual".
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have
> been
> > >>>the
> > >>> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
> > >>>specific
> > >>> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
> > >>>note.
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>>Regards,
> > >>> >>>Greg Stein
> > >>> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue
> which
> > >>> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
> > >>> >>>> project and community.
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> As such:
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
> > >>> >>>>ActiveMQ.
> > >>> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
> > >>>umbrella
> > >>> >>>>of
> > >>> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
> > >>>another
> > >>> >>>>is
> > >>> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
> > >>>off
> > >>> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow
> together,
> > >>>has
> > >>> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
> > >>>struggle.
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The
> job
> > >>>of
> > >>> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
> > >>>job
> > >>> >>>>is
> > >>> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and
> strongly
> > >>> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
> > >>>pro-active
> > >>> >>>> action is required by the board.
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
> > >>>and a
> > >>> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious
> project,
> > >>> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>>...
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
2015-04-08 22:52 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> This isn’t a flame war, and you continue to state things about
> what’s going to be maintained and what’s not, and it’s not backed
> by fact. Some comments below:
>
>
> [...]
>
> >[..]
> >In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> >clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
> >they all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
> >one, I don't see why I should give it
> > any more second thoughts.
> >
> >
> >I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
> >having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon
> >abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker.
> >Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I
> > certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on
> >activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker
> >are willing to work on it.
> >
>
>
> The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
> by the data. It doesn’t support that.
> From reporter.apache.org:
>
> The project is frequently releasing code:
> from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
> (5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
> (5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
> from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
> (5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
> (5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
> (4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
>
> 256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
>
Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-)
Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ project
?
That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core broker*
code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining
the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols,
persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs.
When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core
components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation
(see earlier points made by David Jencks).
So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*. The
attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February
2009. This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode
since a few years.
I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people
suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong as
I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics.
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >>So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
> >>not make any sense to me.
> >>So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
> >>currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
> >>activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
> >>
> >>
> >>2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >>> Hi Gary,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
> >>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
> >>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
> >>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
> >>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
> >>>
> >>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
> >>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
> >>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
> >>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
> >>> needs to be made.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
> >>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
> >>>
> >>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
> >>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
> >>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
> >>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
> >>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
> >>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
> >>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
> >>>
> >>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
> >>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
> >>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
> >>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
> >>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> >>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
> >>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >>> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> >>>
> >>> >Hi Chris,
> >>> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
> >>> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
> >>> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
> >>> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
> >>> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
> >>> >
> >>> >cheers,
> >>> >Gary.
> >>> >
> >>> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
> >>> >> community needs to address.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
> >>> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
> >>> >>
> >>> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
> >>> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
> >>> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
> >>> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
> >>> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
> >>> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
> >>> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
> >>>hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
> >>> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
> >>> >> report.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
> >>> >>community
> >>> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
> >>>into
> >>> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
> >>>project
> >>> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
> >>> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
> >>> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
> >>> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
> >>> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
> >>> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
> >>> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
> >>> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
> >>> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
> >>> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Cheers,
> >>> >> Chris
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >>> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
> >>> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
> >>><de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
> >>>individual"
> >>> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and
> >>>to
> >>> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
> >>>again,
> >>> >>>as
> >>> >>>"Chris, the individual".
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been
> >>>the
> >>> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
> >>>specific
> >>> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
> >>>note.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>Regards,
> >>> >>>Greg Stein
> >>> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
> >>> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
> >>> >>>> project and community.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> As such:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
> >>> >>>>ActiveMQ.
> >>> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
> >>>umbrella
> >>> >>>>of
> >>> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
> >>>another
> >>> >>>>is
> >>> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
> >>>off
> >>> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together,
> >>>has
> >>> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
> >>>struggle.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job
> >>>of
> >>> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
> >>>job
> >>> >>>>is
> >>> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
> >>> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
> >>>pro-active
> >>> >>>> action is required by the board.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
> >>>and a
> >>> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
> >>> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>...
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
This isn’t a flame war, and you continue to state things about
what’s going to be maintained and what’s not, and it’s not backed
by fact. Some comments below:
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>
Reply-To: "board@apache.org" <bo...@apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 12:52 PM
To: "board@apache.org" <bo...@apache.org>, "dev@activemq.apache.org"
<de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>
>[..]
>
>HornetQ does not exists at the ASF, as a project or as subproject. The
>only thing is the "HornetQ code donation" which has been accepted,
>committed and already rebranded.
Its acceptance is under dispute, by more than one member of the
PMC and by more than one member of the Apache Board due to the
methodology under which it was accepted which was already noted.
IOW, you can suggest all you want that it’s done - don’t think
decisions can’t be undone. Period.
>[..]
>Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it,
>given everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git
>repo has been named "activemq-6" and all the commits lead to messages on
>the mailing list starting with "activemq-6
> git commit", and that has been this way since 5 months. So raising
>hands after 5 months of open development ....
Complain and moan about raising hands all you want, they are raised,
and now the PMC must respond, or the board will respond. Period.
>
>
>Of course, during the recent conversations that took place, especially
>when talking about the future of this code donation, the term "HornetQ"
>was used as a way to describe the "hornetq code donation which is now
>located in the activemq-6 git repository".
>
>
>In addition, given the clear goal was to rebrand it to activemq6 (and it
>has already been rebranded that way, and the first release of this code
>is what started all those discussions), pointing fingers at Red Hat for
>abusive trademarks use looks, again,
> really abusive to me.
The PMC must report a decision in each of the areas identified.
I can’t make it clearer than this. That decision will be evaluated
by the board during your next report. Re-read what I wrote.
>
>[..]
>In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
>clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
>they all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
>one, I don't see why I should give it
> any more second thoughts.
>
>
>I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
>having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon
>abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker.
>Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I
> certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on
>activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker
>are willing to work on it.
>
The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
by the data. It doesn’t support that.
>From reporter.apache.org:
The project is frequently releasing code:
from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
(5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
(5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
(5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
(5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
(4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
Cheers,
Chris
>
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>
>
>>So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
>>not make any sense to me.
>>So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
>>currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
>>activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
>>
>>
>>2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Hi Gary,
>>>
>>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
>>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
>>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>>>
>>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
>>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
>>>
>>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
>>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
>>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
>>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
>>> needs to be made.
>>>
>>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
>>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>>>
>>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
>>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
>>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
>>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
>>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
>>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
>>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>>>
>>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
>>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
>>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
>>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
>>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
>>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>
>>> >Hi Chris,
>>> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>>> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>>> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
>>> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>>> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>>> >
>>> >cheers,
>>> >Gary.
>>> >
>>> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Everyone,
>>> >>
>>> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>>> >> community needs to address.
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>>> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>>> >>
>>> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>>> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>>> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
>>> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
>>> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>>> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
>>> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
>>>hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
>>> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
>>> >> report.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>>> >>community
>>> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
>>>into
>>> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
>>>project
>>> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
>>> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>>> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>>> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>>> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
>>> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
>>> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>>> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
>>> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>>> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> Chris
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
>>> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>>> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
>>><de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>> >>
>>> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
>>>individual"
>>> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and
>>>to
>>> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
>>>again,
>>> >>>as
>>> >>>"Chris, the individual".
>>> >>>
>>> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been
>>>the
>>> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
>>>specific
>>> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
>>>note.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Regards,
>>> >>>Greg Stein
>>> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>>>wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>>> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>>> >>>> project and community.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> As such:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
>>> >>>>ActiveMQ.
>>> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
>>>umbrella
>>> >>>>of
>>> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
>>>another
>>> >>>>is
>>> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
>>>off
>>> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together,
>>>has
>>> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
>>>struggle.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job
>>>of
>>> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
>>>job
>>> >>>>is
>>> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>>> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
>>>pro-active
>>> >>>> action is required by the board.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
>>>and a
>>> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>>> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1
Can I add a point into that:
there was a lot of hard at the docs as well, to give it a nice apache
ActiveMQ looks:
http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/docs/10.0.0-M1/index.html
We reworked the docs, rebranded, improved... it's beyond in quality
to any work I had previously been part in my professional life. it's
some quality of work not available even at hornetQ which was my
previous working gig. and It's all part of a nice team work.
if you download the mobi or ePub, they are actually a nice reading for
your kindle or iPad (for your night reading ;) )...
and BTW you won't/shouldn't see any single mention of the word H word
on it. if you find any, let us know and we fix it.
And we did all that as a starting point of the IP Clearance. We can
only improve it from there.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> 2015-04-08 18:33 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi Guillaume,
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM
>> To: <bo...@apache.org>, <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>> >My understanding is the following:
>> > * the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to
>> >the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project".
>> > * the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF
>> > * the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git
>> >repository (for example all packages have been renamed to
>> >org.apache.activemq afaik)
>> >
>> >So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq
>> >anymore, it has been rebranded as activemq code.
>>
>> The above point is what’s under dispute. The community needs to
>> resolve that, and hasn’t. This is one of the center points of the
>> discussion. Lost in the weeds of auto bot emails (see separate
>> thread); and long threads over the last month, is a clear answer
>> on this point: “has it been rebranded”? One set of folks on the
>> PMC believe it has; another set believe it hasn’t and that the
>> process by which it was rebranded was led by the influence of a
>> set of folks from the same company that share a majority on the
>> PMC. Thanks for the pointers by everyone to the prior
>> discussion, but a decision must be reached to resolve this.
>>
>
> The code having been rebranded is not even a question that can be
> disputed. It's not as if if is something "to be done". It's just a fact
> that can be verified in the git repo. Packages have been renamed, the
> distribution has been renamed, etc...
>
> HornetQ does not exists at the ASF, as a project or as subproject. The
> only thing is the "HornetQ code donation" which has been accepted,
> committed and already rebranded.
>
> What is disputed is the new name and what place this code will have in the
> ActiveMQ project (an additional broker or a replacement or whatever
> other possibility).
>
> Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it, given
> everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git repo has
> been named "activemq-6" and all the commits lead to messages on the mailing
> list starting with "activemq-6 git commit", and that has been this way
> since 5 months. So raising hands after 5 months of open development ....
>
> Of course, during the recent conversations that took place, especially when
> talking about the future of this code donation, the term "HornetQ" was used
> as a way to describe the "hornetq code donation which is now located in the
> activemq-6 git repository".
>
> In addition, given the clear goal was to rebrand it to activemq6 (and it
> has already been rebranded that way, and the first release of this code is
> what started all those discussions), pointing fingers at Red Hat for
> abusive trademarks use looks, again, really abusive to me.
>
>
>>
>> Please work together as a community to resolve it.
>>
>
> I'm following this flame war as I've been following some other ones
> previously, involving the exact same persons. The main problem here is
> mistrust, as people are seen to have a hidden agenda, and I'm not really
> sure how to help with that, I'm not a marriage conselor.
>
> In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when they
> all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 one, I
> don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts.
>
> I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
> having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon abandoned
> for a lack of committers working on the core broker. Maintaining the
> activemq 5 broker is fine, but I certainly fail to see how there will be an
> activemq 6 broker based on activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the
> committers on the broker are willing to work on it.
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> >So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
>> >not make any sense to me.
>> >So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
>> >currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
>> >activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
>> >
>> >
>> >2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> >> Hi Gary,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
>> >> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
>> >> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
>> >> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>> >> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
>> >>
>> >> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
>> >> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
>> >> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
>> >> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
>> >> needs to be made.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
>> >> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>> >>
>> >> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
>> >> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
>> >> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
>> >> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
>> >> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
>> >> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
>> >> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>> >>
>> >> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
>> >> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
>> >> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
>> >> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
>> >> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
>> >> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> >>
>> >> >Hi Chris,
>> >> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>> >> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>> >> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
>> >> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>> >> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>> >> >
>> >> >cheers,
>> >> >Gary.
>> >> >
>> >> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Everyone,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>> >> >> community needs to address.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>> >> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>> >> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>> >> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
>> >> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
>> >> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>> >> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
>> >> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
>> >>hornetq.jboss.org
>> >> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
>> >> >> report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>> >> >>community
>> >> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
>> >>into
>> >> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
>> >>project
>> >> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
>> >> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>> >> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>> >> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>> >> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
>> >> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
>> >> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>> >> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
>> >> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>> >> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> Chris
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>> >> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <dev@activemq.apache.org
>> >
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
>> >>individual"
>> >> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and
>> >>to
>> >> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
>> >>again,
>> >> >>>as
>> >> >>>"Chris, the individual".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been
>> >>the
>> >> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
>> >> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
>> >>note.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Regards,
>> >> >>>Greg Stein
>> >> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>> >> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>> >> >>>> project and community.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> As such:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
>> >> >>>>ActiveMQ.
>> >> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
>> >>umbrella
>> >> >>>>of
>> >> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
>> >>another
>> >> >>>>is
>> >> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
>> >>off
>> >> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together,
>> >>has
>> >> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job
>> >>of
>> >> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
>> >>job
>> >> >>>>is
>> >> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>> >> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
>> >> >>>> action is required by the board.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
>> >>and a
>> >> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>> >> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it, given
> everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git repo has
> been named "activemq-6" and all the commits lead to messages on the mailing
> list starting with "activemq-6 git commit", and that has been this way
> since 5 months. So raising hands after 5 months of open development ....
I don’t get this reluctance to realize it must not have been clear given the shear number of people now objecting. Surely you can see that there was some confusion. Not everyone reads every message and it slipped by unnoticed until someone brought it to everyones attention. I don’t find that weird at all. There was some honest confusion and now everyone wants to clear up things.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
2015-04-08 18:33 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> Hi Guillaume,
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM
> To: <bo...@apache.org>, <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
> >My understanding is the following:
> > * the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to
> >the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project".
> > * the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF
> > * the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git
> >repository (for example all packages have been renamed to
> >org.apache.activemq afaik)
> >
> >So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq
> >anymore, it has been rebranded as activemq code.
>
> The above point is what’s under dispute. The community needs to
> resolve that, and hasn’t. This is one of the center points of the
> discussion. Lost in the weeds of auto bot emails (see separate
> thread); and long threads over the last month, is a clear answer
> on this point: “has it been rebranded”? One set of folks on the
> PMC believe it has; another set believe it hasn’t and that the
> process by which it was rebranded was led by the influence of a
> set of folks from the same company that share a majority on the
> PMC. Thanks for the pointers by everyone to the prior
> discussion, but a decision must be reached to resolve this.
>
The code having been rebranded is not even a question that can be
disputed. It's not as if if is something "to be done". It's just a fact
that can be verified in the git repo. Packages have been renamed, the
distribution has been renamed, etc...
HornetQ does not exists at the ASF, as a project or as subproject. The
only thing is the "HornetQ code donation" which has been accepted,
committed and already rebranded.
What is disputed is the new name and what place this code will have in the
ActiveMQ project (an additional broker or a replacement or whatever
other possibility).
Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it, given
everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git repo has
been named "activemq-6" and all the commits lead to messages on the mailing
list starting with "activemq-6 git commit", and that has been this way
since 5 months. So raising hands after 5 months of open development ....
Of course, during the recent conversations that took place, especially when
talking about the future of this code donation, the term "HornetQ" was used
as a way to describe the "hornetq code donation which is now located in the
activemq-6 git repository".
In addition, given the clear goal was to rebrand it to activemq6 (and it
has already been rebranded that way, and the first release of this code is
what started all those discussions), pointing fingers at Red Hat for
abusive trademarks use looks, again, really abusive to me.
>
> Please work together as a community to resolve it.
>
I'm following this flame war as I've been following some other ones
previously, involving the exact same persons. The main problem here is
mistrust, as people are seen to have a hidden agenda, and I'm not really
sure how to help with that, I'm not a marriage conselor.
In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when they
all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 one, I
don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts.
I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon abandoned
for a lack of committers working on the core broker. Maintaining the
activemq 5 broker is fine, but I certainly fail to see how there will be an
activemq 6 broker based on activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the
committers on the broker are willing to work on it.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
> >So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
> >not make any sense to me.
> >So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
> >currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
> >activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
> >
> >
> >2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Hi Gary,
> >>
> >> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
> >> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
> >> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
> >>
> >> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
> >> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
> >> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
> >>
> >> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
> >> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
> >> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
> >> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
> >> needs to be made.
> >>
> >> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
> >> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
> >>
> >> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
> >> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
> >> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
> >> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
> >> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
> >> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
> >> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
> >>
> >> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
> >> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
> >> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
> >> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
> >> fairly sure that this isn’t.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
> >> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> >>
> >> >Hi Chris,
> >> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
> >> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
> >> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
> >> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
> >> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
> >> >
> >> >cheers,
> >> >Gary.
> >> >
> >> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Everyone,
> >> >>
> >> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
> >> >> community needs to address.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
> >> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
> >> >>
> >> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
> >> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
> >> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
> >> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
> >> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
> >> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
> >> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
> >>hornetq.jboss.org
> >> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
> >> >> report.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
> >> >>community
> >> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
> >>into
> >> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
> >>project
> >> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
> >> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
> >> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
> >> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
> >> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
> >> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
> >> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
> >> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
> >> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
> >> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Chris
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
> >> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
> >> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <dev@activemq.apache.org
> >
> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> >> >>
> >> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
> >>individual"
> >> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and
> >>to
> >> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
> >>again,
> >> >>>as
> >> >>>"Chris, the individual".
> >> >>>
> >> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been
> >>the
> >> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
> >> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
> >>note.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Regards,
> >> >>>Greg Stein
> >> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
> >> >>>
> >> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
> >> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
> >> >>>> project and community.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> As such:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
> >> >>>>ActiveMQ.
> >> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
> >>umbrella
> >> >>>>of
> >> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
> >>another
> >> >>>>is
> >> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
> >>off
> >> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together,
> >>has
> >> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job
> >>of
> >> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
> >>job
> >> >>>>is
> >> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
> >> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
> >> >>>> action is required by the board.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
> >>and a
> >> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
> >> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Guggi <da...@gmail.com>.
strong +1
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that there’s a raging debate on this topic in the
> private mailing list. This seems entirely against the community ethos of
> Apache. Does the PMC get to debate this in private and make a decision on
> the future of the project without the rest of us in the community even
> seeing the debate?
>
> If the community needs to work together bring the debate out from behind
> the closed doors. Otherwise, don’t pretend it was a community decision.
>
> > On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Please work together as a community to resolve it.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
I’m investigating this right now, Tracy. Can you please
reveal where you heard this?
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:08 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>My understanding is that there’s a raging debate on this topic in the
>private mailing list. This seems entirely against the community ethos of
>Apache. Does the PMC get to debate this in private and make a decision on
>the future of the project without the rest of us in the community even
>seeing the debate?
>
>If the community needs to work together bring the debate out from behind
>the closed doors. Otherwise, don’t pretend it was a community decision.
>
>> On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Please work together as a community to resolve it.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
My understanding is that there’s a raging debate on this topic in the private mailing list. This seems entirely against the community ethos of Apache. Does the PMC get to debate this in private and make a decision on the future of the project without the rest of us in the community even seeing the debate?
If the community needs to work together bring the debate out from behind the closed doors. Otherwise, don’t pretend it was a community decision.
> On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Please work together as a community to resolve it.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Guillaume,
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM
To: <bo...@apache.org>, <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>My understanding is the following:
> * the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to
>the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project".
> * the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF
> * the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git
>repository (for example all packages have been renamed to
>org.apache.activemq afaik)
>
>So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq
>anymore, it has been rebranded as activemq code.
The above point is what’s under dispute. The community needs to
resolve that, and hasn’t. This is one of the center points of the
discussion. Lost in the weeds of auto bot emails (see separate
thread); and long threads over the last month, is a clear answer
on this point: “has it been rebranded”? One set of folks on the
PMC believe it has; another set believe it hasn’t and that the
process by which it was rebranded was led by the influence of a
set of folks from the same company that share a majority on the
PMC. Thanks for the pointers by everyone to the prior
discussion, but a decision must be reached to resolve this.
Please work together as a community to resolve it.
Cheers,
Chris
>So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
>not make any sense to me.
>So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
>currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
>activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
>
>
>2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi Gary,
>>
>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>>
>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
>>
>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
>> needs to be made.
>>
>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>>
>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>>
>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>> >Hi Chris,
>> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
>> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>> >
>> >cheers,
>> >Gary.
>> >
>> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> Hi Everyone,
>> >>
>> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>> >> community needs to address.
>> >>
>> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>> >>
>> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
>> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
>> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
>> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
>>hornetq.jboss.org
>> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
>> >> report.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>> >>community
>> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
>>into
>> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
>>project
>> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
>> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>> >>
>> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
>> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
>> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
>> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
>> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> >>
>> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
>>individual"
>> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and
>>to
>> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
>>again,
>> >>>as
>> >>>"Chris, the individual".
>> >>>
>> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been
>>the
>> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
>> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
>>note.
>> >>>
>> >>>Regards,
>> >>>Greg Stein
>> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>> >>>
>> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>> >>>> project and community.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As such:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
>> >>>>ActiveMQ.
>> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
>>umbrella
>> >>>>of
>> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
>>another
>> >>>>is
>> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
>>off
>> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together,
>>has
>> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job
>>of
>> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
>>job
>> >>>>is
>> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
>> >>>> action is required by the board.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
>>and a
>> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>...
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
that's because every communication. any website update is in wait mode now.
I'm asking someone to either update or take that page down. So
whatever is written at [1] is "Lorem Ipsum" text. and was supposed to
be there for a period so short that nobody would have noticed it if
the release happened.
[1] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6.html
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:14 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> .. while it seems that the
>>> HornetQ open source project and community are continuing to develop
>>> that same codebase and community external to the ASF as well as inside
>>> the ASF (often by the same people working in both communities.)
>>
>>
>> there are no developments or features being done at the hornetq
>> codebase.We are only doing eventual bug fixes for current users and we
>> will commit fixes on both codebases when needed, which is actually
>> benefitial for the new codebase.
>
> That's interesting, thanks for the clarification.
> My confusion is from on the one hand seeing statements about HornetQ
> being the future of ActiveMQ[1], yet seemingly no mention of ActiveMQ
> at all on the HornetQ project's site. In fact everything continues to
> point to joining the HornetQ community, participating with the HornetQ
> community, etc, as if business was carrying on as normal. It is true
> that the HornetQ repos seem to be close to idle at this point.
>
> --David
>
> [1] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6.html
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:14 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>...
> That's interesting, thanks for the clarification.
> My confusion is from on the one hand seeing statements about HornetQ
> being the future of ActiveMQ[1], yet seemingly no mention of ActiveMQ
> at all on the HornetQ project's site. In fact everything continues to
> point to joining the HornetQ community, participating with the HornetQ
> community, etc, as if business was carrying on as normal. It is true
> that the HornetQ repos seem to be close to idle at this point.
>
> --David
>
> [1] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6.html
>
Somebody changed this just now, but for readers just catching up here, the
page used to say:
"ActiveMQ6 is next Generation ActiveMQ built on top of the HornetQ
messaging engine."
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> .. while it seems that the
>> HornetQ open source project and community are continuing to develop
>> that same codebase and community external to the ASF as well as inside
>> the ASF (often by the same people working in both communities.)
>
>
> there are no developments or features being done at the hornetq
> codebase.We are only doing eventual bug fixes for current users and we
> will commit fixes on both codebases when needed, which is actually
> benefitial for the new codebase.
That's interesting, thanks for the clarification.
My confusion is from on the one hand seeing statements about HornetQ
being the future of ActiveMQ[1], yet seemingly no mention of ActiveMQ
at all on the HornetQ project's site. In fact everything continues to
point to joining the HornetQ community, participating with the HornetQ
community, etc, as if business was carrying on as normal. It is true
that the HornetQ repos seem to be close to idle at this point.
--David
[1] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6.html
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
> .. while it seems that the
> HornetQ open source project and community are continuing to develop
> that same codebase and community external to the ASF as well as inside
> the ASF (often by the same people working in both communities.)
there are no developments or features being done at the hornetq
codebase.We are only doing eventual bug fixes for current users and we
will commit fixes on both codebases when needed, which is actually
benefitial for the new codebase.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> My understanding is the following:
> * the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to
> the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project".
> * the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF
> * the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git
> repository (for example all packages have been renamed to
> org.apache.activemq afaik)
>
> So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq anymore,
> it has been rebranded as activemq code.
> So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
> not make any sense to me.
> So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
> currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
> activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
>
I am not concerned if RHT wants to keep the HornetQ product, branding,
and trademark. That's perfectly within their right to do so. It
appears the renaming and other steps effectively mitigate most
concerns.
I am concerned that there was a donation of code and a plan to make
the communities a single community, all while it seems that the
HornetQ open source project and community are continuing to develop
that same codebase and community external to the ASF as well as inside
the ASF (often by the same people working in both communities.)
--David
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
My understanding is the following:
* the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to
the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project".
* the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF
* the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git
repository (for example all packages have been renamed to
org.apache.activemq afaik)
So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq
anymore, it has been rebranded as activemq code.
So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
not make any sense to me.
So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>:
> Hi Gary,
>
> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>
> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
>
> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
> needs to be made.
>
> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>
> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>
> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
> >Hi Chris,
> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
> >
> >cheers,
> >Gary.
> >
> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
> >> community needs to address.
> >>
> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
> >>
> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - hornetq.jboss.org
> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
> >> report.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
> >>community
> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ into
> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 project
> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
> >>
> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
> >> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
> >>
> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the individual"
> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and to
> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; again,
> >>>as
> >>>"Chris, the individual".
> >>>
> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been the
> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's note.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Greg Stein
> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
> >>>> project and community.
> >>>>
> >>>> As such:
> >>>>
> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
> >>>>ActiveMQ.
> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella
> >>>>of
> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another
> >>>>is
> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
> >>>>
> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job
> >>>>is
> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
> >>>> action is required by the board.
> >>>>
> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
> >>>>
> >>>>...
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Gary,
Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
<—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
needs to be made.
3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
Apache HornetQ (incubating)
It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
fairly sure that this isn’t.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Hi Chris,
>on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
>we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>
>cheers,
>Gary.
>
>On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>> community needs to address.
>>
>> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>>
>> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
>> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
>> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
>> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - hornetq.jboss.org
>> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
>> report.
>>
>>
>> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>>community
>> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ into
>> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 project
>> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
>> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>>
>> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
>> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
>> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
>> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the individual"
>>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and to
>>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; again,
>>>as
>>>"Chris, the individual".
>>>
>>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been the
>>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
>>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's note.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Greg Stein
>>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>>>
>>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>>>> project and community.
>>>>
>>>> As such:
>>>>
>>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
>>>>ActiveMQ.
>>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella
>>>>of
>>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another
>>>>is
>>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
>>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
>>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
>>>>
>>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
>>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job
>>>>is
>>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
>>>> action is required by the board.
>>>>
>>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
>>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>>>>
>>>>...
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
> The IP clearance does not appear to be completed:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
>
The first release (6.0.0.M1) was supposed to finish that part as part
of the donation process. We cleared all the CAT-x and the first
release was supposed to accomplish/finish the IP clearance, there are
a few other message explaining that in this thread.
We removed every reference to hornetq in the codebase, refactored the
build.. We were refactoring the core and other parts to activemq
(e.g. auto-queue creation, open wire support.. etc).
> An example of an Apache ActiveMQ page that is confusing:
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6.html
>
We intended that as a place holder to be replaced by the page from
martyn's release...
http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
We are in hold at this point before we can proceed to finish these
points. It's a Limbo I agree, but I expect us to clear that soon so we
can continue working on whatever is the decision.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
> that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
> having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
> we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
> to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
The IP clearance does not appear to be completed:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html
An example of an Apache ActiveMQ page that is confusing:
http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6.html
> cheers,
> Gary.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Hi Chris,
on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
cheers,
Gary.
On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
> community needs to address.
>
> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>
> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - hornetq.jboss.org
> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
> report.
>
>
> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the community
> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ into
> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 project
> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>
> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
> To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the individual"
>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and to
>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; again, as
>>"Chris, the individual".
>>
>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been the
>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's note.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Greg Stein
>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>>
>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>>> project and community.
>>>
>>> As such:
>>>
>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in ActiveMQ.
>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella of
>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another is
>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
>>>
>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job is
>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
>>> action is required by the board.
>>>
>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>>>
>>>...
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Everyone,
These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
community needs to address.
1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - hornetq.jboss.org
needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
report.
2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the community
as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ into
Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 project
with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the individual"
>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and to
>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; again, as
>"Chris, the individual".
>
>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been the
>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's note.
>
>Regards,
>Greg Stein
>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>
>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>> project and community.
>>
>> As such:
>>
>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in ActiveMQ.
>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella of
>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another is
>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
>>
>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job is
>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
>> action is required by the board.
>>
>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>>
>>...
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the individual"
using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and to
provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; again, as
"Chris, the individual".
This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been the
messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's note.
Regards,
Greg Stein
ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
> project and community.
>
> As such:
>
> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in ActiveMQ.
> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella of
> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another is
> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
>
> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job is
> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
> action is required by the board.
>
> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
> or as 2 distinct projects.
>
>...
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
project and community.
As such:
The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in ActiveMQ.
There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella of
this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another is
the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job is
not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
action is required by the board.
We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
or as 2 distinct projects.
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/28/2015 01:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What I don't like, from what I read, is almost virus-like
>> attempt to make HQ into AMQ. Virus works by invading a cell
>> and then using the cell itself to reproduce; the original cell
>> is gone, all that remains is the virus (this is incredibly
>> simplified, btw). It almost seems that the idea is, well, we
>> can't control the development of AMQ, so let's stack the
>> deck and make HQ the next version of AMQ and, shazam!, we now
>> control the direction of an Apache TLP.
>
> What I don't like is the imputation of devious motives without supporting evidence. Emotive attack on the character of individuals is unjustified and unhelpful.
>
> Regardless of the merits of different points in this debate, or the eventual conclusion reached, this is surely not the example to set for constructive community discussion.
>
>> Someone on the thread called it a hostile takeover; I fail
>> to see how that interpretation is far from the mark.
>
> I fail to see how that interpretation is supported by fact.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 03/28/2015 01:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> What I don't like, from what I read, is almost virus-like
> attempt to make HQ into AMQ. Virus works by invading a cell
> and then using the cell itself to reproduce; the original cell
> is gone, all that remains is the virus (this is incredibly
> simplified, btw). It almost seems that the idea is, well, we
> can't control the development of AMQ, so let's stack the
> deck and make HQ the next version of AMQ and, shazam!, we now
> control the direction of an Apache TLP.
What I don't like is the imputation of devious motives without
supporting evidence. Emotive attack on the character of individuals is
unjustified and unhelpful.
Regardless of the merits of different points in this debate, or the
eventual conclusion reached, this is surely not the example to set for
constructive community discussion.
> Someone on the thread called it a hostile takeover; I fail
> to see how that interpretation is far from the mark.
I fail to see how that interpretation is supported by fact.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
I agree with Jim. If there is not (near) 100% consensus among committers,
then HQ should become its own project, and there is nothing wrong with
that. ASF are ridden with competing implementations and that is fully
embraced here.
¢2 from peanut gallery
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> What I don't like, from what I read, is almost virus-like
> attempt to make HQ into AMQ. Virus works by invading a cell
> and then using the cell itself to reproduce; the original cell
> is gone, all that remains is the virus (this is incredibly
> simplified, btw). It almost seems that the idea is, well, we
> can't control the development of AMQ, so let's stack the
> deck and make HQ the next version of AMQ and, shazam!, we now
> control the direction of an Apache TLP.
>
> Someone on the thread called it a hostile takeover; I fail
> to see how that interpretation is far from the mark.
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
What I don't like, from what I read, is almost virus-like
attempt to make HQ into AMQ. Virus works by invading a cell
and then using the cell itself to reproduce; the original cell
is gone, all that remains is the virus (this is incredibly
simplified, btw). It almost seems that the idea is, well, we
can't control the development of AMQ, so let's stack the
deck and make HQ the next version of AMQ and, shazam!, we now
control the direction of an Apache TLP.
Someone on the thread called it a hostile takeover; I fail
to see how that interpretation is far from the mark.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> heard.)
>
> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>> perspective.
>>
>
>
>
> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>
This wholesale code import is interesting to me.
I know this has been beaten to death, but this looks at best like a
subproject, most of the commits seem to be from 4-5 folks; folks who
aren't on the PMC, and who don't have a long history with the project,
and folks who all seem to share a single employer. (And this isn't to
knock them, I am sure they are fine folks, I am more noting the
community dynamics) I hear in other messages, that the 'hornetq
community' is stepping up and getting involved....I am left wondering
why this isn't a distinct project on its own.
--David
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by jbertram <jb...@apache.org>.
I don't mean to put words into Andy's mouth, but the way I read his post he's
saying that before the donation HornetQ had a fair amount of heterogeneity,
and now that the donation has occurred there are encouraging signs that the
heterogeneity is carrying over into the ActiveMQ community.
Clearly there are lines of distinction between those in the ActiveMQ
community who are familiar with donated code-base and those that aren't, but
(I feel) the community is united in its desire to deliver a quality
messaging solution.
In general I think that any community with a sufficiently large code-base
will have lines of distinction between developers who are familiar with
certain areas of the code and those that aren't, but I don't think that
necessarily means there are separate communities. I imagine there are
already at least a few Apache communities where this is true.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694010.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
If there is a “HornetQ community” separate of the “Apache
ActiveMQ community” then they are not the same community.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 9:35 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>I agree, and that is already happening. If you look at the HornetQ
>contributors there are nearly 60, we have always encouraged people to
>get involved and we pro actively help them. If you look at the
>ActiveMQ-6 contributors you will see some of the hornetq community is
>already helping out as well as PR's from else where.
>
>On 27/03/15 16:07, jgenender wrote:
>> Dain! Good to see you! Long time no see ;-)
>>
>> Dain is spot on. I'm also an old Geronimo hound. The more people
>>coding
>> helps create heterogeneity. I'm not against HornetQ being AMQ6... in
>>fact I
>> believe I supported it.
>>
>> The problem here is exactly what Dain pointed out. More people coding.
>> BUT... what I have seen is a lot of folks *are* contributing code
>>patches in
>> JIRAs and those JIRAs getting ignored and no love. Recent email
>>threads and
>> discussion (and JIRA comments) evince this as a serious issue. The
>>patches
>> that seem to get accepted seem to be either from making a lot of noise
>>or
>> are due to affiliations. It is certainly no secret that the PMC and
>>many of
>> the committers have a good shade of the color red or have affiliations
>>with
>> the organization. The key to getting people more active is to build the
>> community and nourish people's desire to contribute. That's not
>>happening
>> here. :-( The PMC should be making strides in making this a reality
>>and its
>> not happening.
>>
>> If HornetQ is going to be the new AMQ6... I'm all for it. But it (and
>>this
>> project) needs more heterogeneity.
>>
>> Remember the code is easy. The community is the hard part. If you
>>build
>> the community, the code comes for free, and like a firehose.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-gen
>>eration-tp4693781p4693946.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
I agree, and that is already happening. If you look at the HornetQ
contributors there are nearly 60, we have always encouraged people to
get involved and we pro actively help them. If you look at the
ActiveMQ-6 contributors you will see some of the hornetq community is
already helping out as well as PR's from else where.
On 27/03/15 16:07, jgenender wrote:
> Dain! Good to see you! Long time no see ;-)
>
> Dain is spot on. I'm also an old Geronimo hound. The more people coding
> helps create heterogeneity. I'm not against HornetQ being AMQ6... in fact I
> believe I supported it.
>
> The problem here is exactly what Dain pointed out. More people coding.
> BUT... what I have seen is a lot of folks *are* contributing code patches in
> JIRAs and those JIRAs getting ignored and no love. Recent email threads and
> discussion (and JIRA comments) evince this as a serious issue. The patches
> that seem to get accepted seem to be either from making a lot of noise or
> are due to affiliations. It is certainly no secret that the PMC and many of
> the committers have a good shade of the color red or have affiliations with
> the organization. The key to getting people more active is to build the
> community and nourish people's desire to contribute. That's not happening
> here. :-( The PMC should be making strides in making this a reality and its
> not happening.
>
> If HornetQ is going to be the new AMQ6... I'm all for it. But it (and this
> project) needs more heterogeneity.
>
> Remember the code is easy. The community is the hard part. If you build
> the community, the code comes for free, and like a firehose.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693946.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by jgenender <jg...@apache.org>.
Dain! Good to see you! Long time no see ;-)
Dain is spot on. I'm also an old Geronimo hound. The more people coding
helps create heterogeneity. I'm not against HornetQ being AMQ6... in fact I
believe I supported it.
The problem here is exactly what Dain pointed out. More people coding.
BUT... what I have seen is a lot of folks *are* contributing code patches in
JIRAs and those JIRAs getting ignored and no love. Recent email threads and
discussion (and JIRA comments) evince this as a serious issue. The patches
that seem to get accepted seem to be either from making a lot of noise or
are due to affiliations. It is certainly no secret that the PMC and many of
the committers have a good shade of the color red or have affiliations with
the organization. The key to getting people more active is to build the
community and nourish people's desire to contribute. That's not happening
here. :-( The PMC should be making strides in making this a reality and its
not happening.
If HornetQ is going to be the new AMQ6... I'm all for it. But it (and this
project) needs more heterogeneity.
Remember the code is easy. The community is the hard part. If you build
the community, the code comes for free, and like a firehose.
Jeff
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693946.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I agree with the value of getting more folks involved with coding.
When questions and attempts to contribute are met with silence and
resistance, it is discouraging. I personally had that experience and gave
up more than once.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693943.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Jim,
I did request this from the project, so yes, +1.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM
To: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org>
Cc: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>I can't recall, but did we (the board) request a special report
>from AMQ next meeting to discuss this? If not, maybe we should.
>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> When it comes to code, I find that there is a lot more concern when
>>things are talked about in the abstract. Once you have the new code and
>>show how it is integrated, if it is way better than the current stuff,
>>then there really isn’t a problem. If it is not better, or just a big
>>side step, it should be obvious, and you change it or abandon the
>>effort. (code is always the simple part)
>>
>> As for the community, we’ve had similar problems in the past
>>(especially in Geronimo). The solution is to get more people involved
>>in coding. IMO, without that, there is not much that can be done to
>>reduce the influence of a single company (or clique). In my experience,
>>adding more PMC members isn’t help much if they are not actively coding
>>(other then people realize the PMC list has virtually no traffic). The
>>ones that code make “on-the-ground” decisions that really move the
>>project. The big problem is that it is difficult to new grassroots
>>coders and this is doubly true when you have a community that is
>>responsive to problems, because they remove the desire to “fix your own
>>problem”.
>>
>> That said, I agree with Rich, invite more people to the PMC, and if
>>names are a problem, change them. You can always change the name back
>>later if everyone likes the new stuff better.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>heard.)
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but
>>>the perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>>>project, replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
>>>version. This is how it's been described to me by several different
>>>members of the project community, and their perception is that this has
>>>been done without the consent of the community. This is, of course, a
>>>fairly serious accusation.
>>>
>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>>>on who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>>>affiliation - an even more serious accusation.
>>>
>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>>>imported into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by
>>>virtue of a majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>
>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel
>>>that their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>
>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>suggested.
>>>
>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>
>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>>>the next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I
>>>see that this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that
>>>the code be taken to the incubator.)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 03/27/2015 12:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I can't recall, but did we (the board) request a special report
> from AMQ next meeting to discuss this? If not, maybe we should.
Yes, Chris requested that in the first message that was CC'ed Board.
--Rich
>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> When it comes to code, I find that there is a lot more concern when things are talked about in the abstract. Once you have the new code and show how it is integrated, if it is way better than the current stuff, then there really isn’t a problem. If it is not better, or just a big side step, it should be obvious, and you change it or abandon the effort. (code is always the simple part)
>>
>> As for the community, we’ve had similar problems in the past (especially in Geronimo). The solution is to get more people involved in coding. IMO, without that, there is not much that can be done to reduce the influence of a single company (or clique). In my experience, adding more PMC members isn’t help much if they are not actively coding (other then people realize the PMC list has virtually no traffic). The ones that code make “on-the-ground” decisions that really move the project. The big problem is that it is difficult to new grassroots coders and this is doubly true when you have a community that is responsive to problems, because they remove the desire to “fix your own problem”.
>>
>> That said, I agree with Rich, invite more people to the PMC, and if names are a problem, change them. You can always change the name back later if everyone likes the new stuff better.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be heard.)
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project, replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project community, and their perception is that this has been done without the consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>>>
>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation - an even more serious accusation.
>>>
>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>
>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>
>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been suggested.
>>>
>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>
>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be taken to the incubator.)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I can't recall, but did we (the board) request a special report
from AMQ next meeting to discuss this? If not, maybe we should.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> When it comes to code, I find that there is a lot more concern when things are talked about in the abstract. Once you have the new code and show how it is integrated, if it is way better than the current stuff, then there really isn’t a problem. If it is not better, or just a big side step, it should be obvious, and you change it or abandon the effort. (code is always the simple part)
>
> As for the community, we’ve had similar problems in the past (especially in Geronimo). The solution is to get more people involved in coding. IMO, without that, there is not much that can be done to reduce the influence of a single company (or clique). In my experience, adding more PMC members isn’t help much if they are not actively coding (other then people realize the PMC list has virtually no traffic). The ones that code make “on-the-ground” decisions that really move the project. The big problem is that it is difficult to new grassroots coders and this is doubly true when you have a community that is responsive to problems, because they remove the desire to “fix your own problem”.
>
> That said, I agree with Rich, invite more people to the PMC, and if names are a problem, change them. You can always change the name back later if everyone likes the new stuff better.
>
> -dain
>
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be heard.)
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project, replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project community, and their perception is that this has been done without the consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>>
>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation - an even more serious accusation.
>>
>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>
>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>
>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been suggested.
>>
>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>
>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be taken to the incubator.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
My 2 cents.
When it comes to code, I find that there is a lot more concern when things are talked about in the abstract. Once you have the new code and show how it is integrated, if it is way better than the current stuff, then there really isn’t a problem. If it is not better, or just a big side step, it should be obvious, and you change it or abandon the effort. (code is always the simple part)
As for the community, we’ve had similar problems in the past (especially in Geronimo). The solution is to get more people involved in coding. IMO, without that, there is not much that can be done to reduce the influence of a single company (or clique). In my experience, adding more PMC members isn’t help much if they are not actively coding (other then people realize the PMC list has virtually no traffic). The ones that code make “on-the-ground” decisions that really move the project. The big problem is that it is difficult to new grassroots coders and this is doubly true when you have a community that is responsive to problems, because they remove the desire to “fix your own problem”.
That said, I agree with Rich, invite more people to the PMC, and if names are a problem, change them. You can always change the name back later if everyone likes the new stuff better.
-dain
On Mar 27, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be heard.)
>
> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
>> perspective.
>>
>
>
>
> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project, replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project community, and their perception is that this has been done without the consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>
> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation - an even more serious accusation.
>
> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>
> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>
> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been suggested.
>
> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>
> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be taken to the incubator.)
>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
[I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
heard.)
On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
> perspective.
>
A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
project, replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
version. This is how it's been described to me by several different
members of the project community, and their perception is that this has
been done without the consent of the community. This is, of course, a
fairly serious accusation.
Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
on who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
affiliation - an even more serious accusation.
The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
imported into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by
virtue of a majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
suggested.
1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
the next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
that this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the
code be taken to the incubator.)
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Hi Chris,
If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM
perspective.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part
> of the larger point. There is a serious
> naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing
> as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or
> having the product be in compliance with the naming guidelines from
> Trademarks and its committee. Bringing trademarks@
> in to the conversation now which should have been done by this PMC
> long ago. The fact that it wasn’t is troubling.
>
> I think that the PMC needs a full report at the next board meeting.
> CC’ing board@ as I may or may not be a Director when that happens but
> it should be picked up by the newly elected board.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:52 AM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
>>> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
>>> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> Note we recently went through a similar thought
>>> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
>>> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
>>> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
>>> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
>>> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
>>> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>>>
>>> Here are a few reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
>>> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
>>> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
>>> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
>>> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
>>> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>>>
>>> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
>>> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
>>> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
>>> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
>>> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
>>> already.
>>>
>>> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
>>> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
>>> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
>>> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
>>> the IP clearance.
>>>
>>> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
>>> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
>>> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>>>
>>> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>>>
>>> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
>>> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
>>> are ASF or IPMC members
>>> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
>>> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
>>> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
>>> out during Incubation.
>>>
>>> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
>>> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
>>> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>>Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past
>>and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ.
>>
>>Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a
>>JMS 2.0 implementation. Heck, that's why I went through the pain of
>>ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see
>>it happen. I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0
>>implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I
>>believe
>>all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet
>>the
>>feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it.
>>While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that
>>point? It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to
>>release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while).
>>
>>With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ
>>project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's
>>ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for
>>ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via
>>vote). Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut
>>releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors.
>>
>>The sticking point's going to come down to name. I don't see Red Hat
>>shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name
>>would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache
>>isn't even referenced on the site.
>>
>>If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat
>>in as a mentor to get you going.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
>>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>
>>> >Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>>the
>>> >naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>>really
>>> >change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>> >succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>> >
>>> >Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>> >that
>>> >direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad
>>>to be
>>> >having this discussion.
>>> >
>>> >The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>> >rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>>> >mean
>>> >that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>> >
>>> >So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>> >
>>> >We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>> >ActiveMQ
>>> >community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>> >that
>>> >Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>> >
>>> >ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>> >mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>>industries,
>>> >and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>> >
>>> >Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>>strength
>>> >of
>>> >technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>>technology;
>>> >ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>>presumption
>>> >that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>> >
>>> >Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>valid
>>> >merits described.
>>> >
>>> >I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>> >understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >View this message in context:
>>> >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-
>>> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>>> >ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>>> >Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
(please note mixed private/public lists)
Just to be clear: the ASF *must* own trademark rights to any software
project or product before it can become a top level Apache project.
This is the fundamental way that the ASF can ensure the project can
maintain independent governance in the future.
This is a hard requirement on exiting Incubation; we do not require
trademark rights to *enter* incubation, but there should be a clear
statement that whatever name/logos an incoming podling plans to use will
be donated to the ASF during incubation. It's a lot easier to start the
podling hosting setup with the right name, rather than changing later.
- Shane
On 3/26/15 10:54 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part
> of the larger point. There is a serious
> naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing
> as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or
> having the product be in compliance with the naming guidelines from
> Trademarks and its committee. Bringing trademarks@
> in to the conversation now which should have been done by this PMC
> long ago. The fact that it wasn’t is troubling.
>
> I think that the PMC needs a full report at the next board meeting.
> CC’ing board@ as I may or may not be a Director when that happens but
> it should be picked up by the newly elected board.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:52 AM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
>>> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
>>> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> Note we recently went through a similar thought
>>> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
>>> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
>>> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
>>> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
>>> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
>>> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>>>
>>> Here are a few reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
>>> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
>>> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
>>> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
>>> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
>>> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>>>
>>> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
>>> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
>>> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
>>> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
>>> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
>>> already.
>>>
>>> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
>>> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
>>> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
>>> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
>>> the IP clearance.
>>>
>>> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
>>> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
>>> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>>>
>>> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>>>
>>> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
>>> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
>>> are ASF or IPMC members
>>> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
>>> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
>>> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
>>> out during Incubation.
>>>
>>> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
>>> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
>>> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>> Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past
>> and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ.
>>
>> Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a
>> JMS 2.0 implementation. Heck, that's why I went through the pain of
>> ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see
>> it happen. I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0
>> implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I
>> believe
>> all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet
>> the
>> feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it.
>> While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that
>> point? It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to
>> release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while).
>>
>> With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ
>> project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's
>> ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for
>> ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via
>> vote). Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut
>> releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors.
>>
>> The sticking point's going to come down to name. I don't see Red Hat
>> shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name
>> would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache
>> isn't even referenced on the site.
>>
>> If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat
>> in as a mentor to get you going.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
>>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>
>>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>> the
>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>> really
>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>
>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>>> that
>>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad
>>> to be
>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>>>> mean
>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>>
>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>>
>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>> that
>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>> industries,
>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>>
>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>> strength
>>>> of
>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>> technology;
>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>> presumption
>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>>
>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>> valid
>>>> merits described.
>>>>
>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-
>>> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>>>> ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part
of the larger point. There is a serious
naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing
as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or
having the product be in compliance with the naming guidelines from
Trademarks and its committee. Bringing trademarks@
in to the conversation now which should have been done by this PMC
long ago. The fact that it wasn’t is troubling.
I think that the PMC needs a full report at the next board meeting.
CC’ing board@ as I may or may not be a Director when that happens but
it should be picked up by the newly elected board.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:52 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>wrote:
>
>> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
>> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
>> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>>
>> Note we recently went through a similar thought
>> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
>> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
>> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
>> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
>> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
>> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>>
>> Here are a few reasons:
>>
>> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
>> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
>> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
>> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
>> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
>> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>>
>> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
>> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
>> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
>> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
>> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
>> already.
>>
>> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
>> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
>> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
>> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
>> the IP clearance.
>>
>> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
>> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
>> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>>
>> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>>
>> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
>> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
>> are ASF or IPMC members
>> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
>> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
>> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
>> out during Incubation.
>>
>> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
>> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
>> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>
>Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past
>and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ.
>
>Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a
>JMS 2.0 implementation. Heck, that's why I went through the pain of
>ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see
>it happen. I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0
>implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I
>believe
>all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet
>the
>feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it.
>While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that
>point? It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to
>release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while).
>
>With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ
>project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's
>ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for
>ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via
>vote). Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut
>releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors.
>
>The sticking point's going to come down to name. I don't see Red Hat
>shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name
>would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache
>isn't even referenced on the site.
>
>If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat
>in as a mentor to get you going.
>
>John
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>> >Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>the
>> >naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>really
>> >change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>> >succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>> >
>> >Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>> >that
>> >direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad
>>to be
>> >having this discussion.
>> >
>> >The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>> >rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>> >mean
>> >that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>> >
>> >So, let's put this back into perspective.
>> >
>> >We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>> >ActiveMQ
>> >community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>> >that
>> >Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>> >
>> >ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>> >mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>industries,
>> >and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>> >
>> >Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>strength
>> >of
>> >technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>technology;
>> >ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>presumption
>> >that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>> >
>> >Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>valid
>> >merits described.
>> >
>> >I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>> >understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >View this message in context:
>> >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-
>> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>> >ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>> >Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>
> Note we recently went through a similar thought
> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>
> Here are a few reasons:
>
> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>
> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
> already.
>
> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
> the IP clearance.
>
> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>
> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>
> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
> are ASF or IPMC members
> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
> out during Incubation.
>
> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past
and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ.
Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a
JMS 2.0 implementation. Heck, that's why I went through the pain of
ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see
it happen. I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0
implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I believe
all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet the
feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it.
While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that
point? It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to
release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while).
With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ
project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's
ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for
ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via
vote). Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut
releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors.
The sticking point's going to come down to name. I don't see Red Hat
shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name
would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache
isn't even referenced on the site.
If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat
in as a mentor to get you going.
John
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
> >Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
> >naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
> >change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
> >succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> >Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
> >that
> >direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
> >having this discussion.
> >
> >The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
> >rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
> >mean
> >that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
> >
> >So, let's put this back into perspective.
> >
> >We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
> >ActiveMQ
> >community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
> >that
> >Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
> >
> >ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
> >mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
> >and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
> >
> >Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength
> >of
> >technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
> >ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
> >that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
> >
> >Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
> >merits described.
> >
> >I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
> >understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >View this message in context:
> >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-
> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
> >ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
> >Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
Note we recently went through a similar thought
on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
(aka you can’t release one without the other).
Here are a few reasons:
1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
“independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
already.
3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
the IP clearance.
There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
Instead, I would recommend the following:
R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
are ASF or IPMC members
R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
out during Incubation.
If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
>naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
>change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>
>Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>that
>direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
>having this discussion.
>
>The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>mean
>that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>
>So, let's put this back into perspective.
>
>We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>ActiveMQ
>community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>that
>Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>
>ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
>and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>
>Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength
>of
>technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
>ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
>that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>
>Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
>merits described.
>
>I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
+1. I was definitely recommending this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:26 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>This is not a view shared by everybody.
>
>The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
>in the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
>solution. If hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from
>the activemq community will jump boat. Who knows.
>
>But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
>the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>
>After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
>the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>for the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction.
>They can choose to be as close or distant they want from the current
>activemq features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards
>what activemq6 should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision
>the hornetq community has for their project.
>
>Cheers,
>Hadrian
>
>
>On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>
>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty
>>explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>>the
>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>>really
>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>>that
>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad
>>>to be
>>> having this discussion.
>>>
>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>>>mean
>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>
>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>
>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>ActiveMQ
>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>that
>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>>industries,
>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>
>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>>strength of
>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>>technology;
>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>>presumption
>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>
>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>valid
>>> merits described.
>>>
>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-ge
>>>neration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Raul Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com>.
Apologies if my message came across as negative criticism. It absolutely
was not my intention.
I have no doubt that everybody's goal is to improve things. And the
donation is a kindle for new awesomeness in this community.
My proposal was to not jump straight on the 6.0.0 wagon. I must have
skipped the message where you explained it, but m# releases are a perfectly
valid alternative to alpha, betas and CRs.
But m# releases are of little use without widespread announcement on dzone,
theserverside, blogs, twitter, etc. to persuade/challenge people outside
the AMQ community to take them for a spin and send their feedback.
Is the community planning to overhaul the AMQ site too? The last thing we
want is people landing all excited on a 2007-style page only to back away.
Raúl.
On 25 Mar 2015 23:05, "Clebert" <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Going to 6.0.0 was mistake that we later tried to fix with the m# proposal.
>
> We are just trying to improve things.
>
>
> -- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone.
>
> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 17:40, Raul Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com> wrote:
> >
> > As an ActiveMQ user and consultant for 7+ years now, I had received the
> > news of the HornetQ donation quite positively.
> >
> > AMQ had started to show troubling signs of inactivity. No new exciting
> > features any longer. Practically no interest in adopting JMS 2.0. In my
> > head, AMQ had gone into "maintenance mode" long ago - a fact that's
> quite
> > evident if you compare with the vitality of a (somewhat related)
> community
> > like Camel.
> >
> > I confess I have not followed the technical codebase merges, but it did
> > seem a bit risky to go with v6 for this first release. On a side note, it
> > doesn't even show seriousness that the v6 wiki page still puts Apollo
> > forward as core [1].
> >
> > To me, it feels like a hasty and improvised step. The internals have
> > changed a great deal, if I'm not mistaken.
> >
> > Is the community confident enough to go shouting to the world "Hey! This
> is
> > our first MAJOR release after 7 years", and have it be a complete
> success?
> >
> > Or is the community somewhat making a risky move?
> >
> > Frankly, given the magnitude of the changes, I would have expected a
> > timeline of Alpha, Beta and CR releases. Even if this is not the custom
> in
> > this community. Two architectures are being merged, which makes it an
> > exceptional event. And that deserves exceptional software and release
> > engineering treatment, if you ask me.
> >
> > In other words, as an end user, consultant and spokesperson for many
> > customers, I would expect a series of pre-GA releases with advertisement
> > and announcements in blogs, online magazines, aggregators, etc. to gather
> > technical feedback before pushing v6 out the door.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Raúl.
> >
> > [1] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html
> >> On 25 Mar 2015 22:06, "Tracy Snell" <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future
> of
> >> activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going
> >> forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue). The
> >> current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration
> that
> >> the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In
> >> reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side
> advocating
> >> a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not
> going
> >> the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an
> insult to
> >> the non HornetQ side of this community.
> >>
> >> As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ
> >> donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take
> >> off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6
> that
> >> includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built
> in
> >> the community. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to
> take
> >> over the ActiveMQ name.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com
> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink
> at
> >>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
> >>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
> >> having
> >>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Clebert <cl...@gmail.com>.
Going to 6.0.0 was mistake that we later tried to fix with the m# proposal.
We are just trying to improve things.
-- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone.
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 17:40, Raul Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com> wrote:
>
> As an ActiveMQ user and consultant for 7+ years now, I had received the
> news of the HornetQ donation quite positively.
>
> AMQ had started to show troubling signs of inactivity. No new exciting
> features any longer. Practically no interest in adopting JMS 2.0. In my
> head, AMQ had gone into "maintenance mode" long ago - a fact that's quite
> evident if you compare with the vitality of a (somewhat related) community
> like Camel.
>
> I confess I have not followed the technical codebase merges, but it did
> seem a bit risky to go with v6 for this first release. On a side note, it
> doesn't even show seriousness that the v6 wiki page still puts Apollo
> forward as core [1].
>
> To me, it feels like a hasty and improvised step. The internals have
> changed a great deal, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Is the community confident enough to go shouting to the world "Hey! This is
> our first MAJOR release after 7 years", and have it be a complete success?
>
> Or is the community somewhat making a risky move?
>
> Frankly, given the magnitude of the changes, I would have expected a
> timeline of Alpha, Beta and CR releases. Even if this is not the custom in
> this community. Two architectures are being merged, which makes it an
> exceptional event. And that deserves exceptional software and release
> engineering treatment, if you ask me.
>
> In other words, as an end user, consultant and spokesperson for many
> customers, I would expect a series of pre-GA releases with advertisement
> and announcements in blogs, online magazines, aggregators, etc. to gather
> technical feedback before pushing v6 out the door.
>
> Regards,
> Raúl.
>
> [1] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html
>> On 25 Mar 2015 22:06, "Tracy Snell" <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of
>> activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going
>> forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue). The
>> current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that
>> the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In
>> reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side advocating
>> a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not going
>> the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an insult to
>> the non HornetQ side of this community.
>>
>> As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ
>> donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take
>> off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6 that
>> includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built in
>> the community. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to take
>> over the ActiveMQ name.
>>
>>
>>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
>>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
>> having
>>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Raul Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com>.
As an ActiveMQ user and consultant for 7+ years now, I had received the
news of the HornetQ donation quite positively.
AMQ had started to show troubling signs of inactivity. No new exciting
features any longer. Practically no interest in adopting JMS 2.0. In my
head, AMQ had gone into "maintenance mode" long ago - a fact that's quite
evident if you compare with the vitality of a (somewhat related) community
like Camel.
I confess I have not followed the technical codebase merges, but it did
seem a bit risky to go with v6 for this first release. On a side note, it
doesn't even show seriousness that the v6 wiki page still puts Apollo
forward as core [1].
To me, it feels like a hasty and improvised step. The internals have
changed a great deal, if I'm not mistaken.
Is the community confident enough to go shouting to the world "Hey! This is
our first MAJOR release after 7 years", and have it be a complete success?
Or is the community somewhat making a risky move?
Frankly, given the magnitude of the changes, I would have expected a
timeline of Alpha, Beta and CR releases. Even if this is not the custom in
this community. Two architectures are being merged, which makes it an
exceptional event. And that deserves exceptional software and release
engineering treatment, if you ask me.
In other words, as an end user, consultant and spokesperson for many
customers, I would expect a series of pre-GA releases with advertisement
and announcements in blogs, online magazines, aggregators, etc. to gather
technical feedback before pushing v6 out the door.
Regards,
Raúl.
[1] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html
On 25 Mar 2015 22:06, "Tracy Snell" <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of
> activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going
> forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue). The
> current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that
> the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In
> reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side advocating
> a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not going
> the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an insult to
> the non HornetQ side of this community.
>
> As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ
> donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take
> off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6 that
> includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built in
> the community. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to take
> over the ActiveMQ name.
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
> > some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
> > community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
> having
> > a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue). The current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side advocating a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not going the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an insult to the non HornetQ side of this community.
As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6 that includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built in the community. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to take over the ActiveMQ name.
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Clebert <cl...@gmail.com>.
>
>
> By the way, if we're talking benchmarks, here's a benchmark that shows
> ActiveMQ outperforming HornetQ:
> http://blog.x-aeon.com/2013/04/10/a-quick-message-queue-benchmark-activemq-rabbitmq-hornetq-qpid-apollo/
That is stomp. We had a few issues with stomp on 2.3.0.
That has nothing to do with the architecture of hornetq. It only tells that stomp is not optimized on the code base. If that was a blocker for you I could run the benchmark and optimize any issues next week.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Art,
inline -
> Gary - remember the idea of "feedback flow control"? I still think that is
> a better approach to PFC in spite of being told that ActiveMQ doesn't want
> large changes of that nature. And how about approaches to solving temporary
> destination race conditions across a network of brokers? I know it can be
> solved and am working now toward that end.
>
That is all good. Everything can be solved. The difficulty is
satisfying all of the usecases embodied in 4k of tests.
> Gary - I ask for information showing what problem needs to be solved and you
> reply, "you can look around yourself," and give a reference to one benchmark
> that appears to cost $1800. That's not a helpful, nor a convincing,
> argument. I am getting a strong vibe from you, and I truly hope you find a
> next step that satisfies you.
>
Please explain the vibe thing?
It costs nothing to read the documentation[1] around specjms and the
results are detailed and public.
Try maxing out a disk with activemq or try and saturate a network in a
throughput test.
When I wrote "you will have to do your own investigation to be sure"
this is the sort of thing I am referring
to.
When I mention the scalability limitations, this is in no way an
attack on activemq, it is a reflection of reality based on my
experience of pushing activemq 5.x to the max in many dimensions.
Granted, many users don't need any more scalability than 5.x currently
has and that is great. However there are many other use cases where
being able to max out hardware is a necessity. In any event, this is a
purely technical discussion. Until there is a release of activemq6
folks have nothing concrete to validate.
[1] https://www.spec.org/jms2007/docs/DesignDocument.html
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
+1 Hadrian
"Reports of ActiveMQ's death have been grossly exaggerated." (borrowing from
Mark Twain)
There is definitely a sense that many of the members of this PMC are tired
of maintaining the existing code base. That's understandable - they've been
the key folks for a long time, and I for one appreciate their effort.
Thank you.
With that said, I would love to see a fresh wave of innovation and influx of
talent to ActiveMQ. Itself.
Gary - remember the idea of "feedback flow control"? I still think that is
a better approach to PFC in spite of being told that ActiveMQ doesn't want
large changes of that nature. And how about approaches to solving temporary
destination race conditions across a network of brokers? I know it can be
solved and am working now toward that end.
I know very well that over many years, almost no new committers were added
to ActiveMQ. Certainly, we need to do better.
Gary - I ask for information showing what problem needs to be solved and you
reply, "you can look around yourself," and give a reference to one benchmark
that appears to cost $1800. That's not a helpful, nor a convincing,
argument. I am getting a strong vibe from you, and I truly hope you find a
next step that satisfies you.
By the way, if we're talking benchmarks, here's a benchmark that shows
ActiveMQ outperforming HornetQ:
http://blog.x-aeon.com/2013/04/10/a-quick-message-queue-benchmark-activemq-rabbitmq-hornetq-qpid-apollo/
(note the graphs show time, so lower is better).
There is no convincing argument at hand that ActiveMQ is anything other than
a widely-used, popular and successful solution, and I for one will continue
to put in the effort I can to continue it forward. I wish I were paid to
work on it, but my effort is actually 100% volunteer, making it harder to
put in the time. But I will find time and I hope others will join me.
Honestly, if we look at the arguments for bringing HornetQ in as ActiveMQ6,
they all involve attacking ActiveMQ and hype around the strength of
HornetQ's technology. So, then, why does HornetQ need the ActiveMQ name?
HornetQ folks - you are welcome to woo any and all ActiveMQ community
members. Coming in and saying, "we need a presumption of taking the
activemq-6 mantle so we can tap into the ActiveMQ resources" is not
convincing. Nor is the, "hey, come on guys - let's work together" argument.
In fact, why do you need the activemq6 name at all? The more I don't hear,
"yeah, we could go out on our own, but really thought this move was the best
because ...," the less I believe the hype.
Also under the "joining forces argument" -- should Microsoft Windows and Mac
OSX merge and join forces? I'm sure there would be benefits. But, perhaps
the entire industry is better because they do *not* join forces. Sometimes
innovation comes best when two solutions are built separately toward the
same end. There are entire markets based on that model.
HornetQ folks - your solution has some strong merits based on my brief
research, and I anticipate great things. For example, the separation of the
core messaging primitives from JMS sounds promising, as does the statement
that the engine uses entirely non-blocking operations.
Keep up the good work - everyone. Vigorous discussion is an important part
of open source.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693825.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for jumping on the thread here, but I have to note that the
Apache Community is more than just developers - there is a really good
write up here http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html and
lots of extra info here on what builds an apache community
https://community.apache.org.
-Jamie
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:29 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> rajdavies wrote
>> No idea about users or install base of either ActiveMQ or HornetQ - I
>> meant developers - that's really what Apache means by "community" isn't
>> it?
>
> No... the developers don't make up the community. Its made of users,
> developers, and contributors on many levels, etc. Its not the developers
> who necessarily make the community, its everything. The more users, the
> more contributions, the more patches, the eventual committers. All of this
> drives the community.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693956.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Well, Jeff actually gave you the typical ASF definition of community,
but here's a more authoritative version [1] (Community section). There
are other authoritative sources I could point to if necessary.
Hadrian
[1]
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
On 03/27/2015 01:37 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
> I think your thinking about the typical open source definition of community here.
>
>
>
>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 16:59, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> rajdavies wrote
>>> No idea about users or install base of either ActiveMQ or HornetQ - I
>>> meant developers - that's really what Apache means by "community" isn't
>>> it?
>>
>> No... the developers don't make up the community. Its made of users,
>> developers, and contributors on many levels, etc. Its not the developers
>> who necessarily make the community, its everything. The more users, the
>> more contributions, the more patches, the eventual committers. All of this
>> drives the community.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693956.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
I think your thinking about the typical open source definition of community here.
> On 27 Mar 2015, at 16:59, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> rajdavies wrote
>> No idea about users or install base of either ActiveMQ or HornetQ - I
>> meant developers - that's really what Apache means by "community" isn't
>> it?
>
> No... the developers don't make up the community. Its made of users,
> developers, and contributors on many levels, etc. Its not the developers
> who necessarily make the community, its everything. The more users, the
> more contributions, the more patches, the eventual committers. All of this
> drives the community.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693956.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by jgenender <jg...@apache.org>.
rajdavies wrote
> No idea about users or install base of either ActiveMQ or HornetQ - I
> meant developers - that's really what Apache means by "community" isn't
> it?
No... the developers don't make up the community. Its made of users,
developers, and contributors on many levels, etc. Its not the developers
who necessarily make the community, its everything. The more users, the
more contributions, the more patches, the eventual committers. All of this
drives the community.
Jeff
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693956.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
No idea about users or install base of either ActiveMQ or HornetQ - I meant developers - that's really what Apache means by "community" isn't it?
> On 27 Mar 2015, at 16:17, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> rajdavies wrote
>> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate
>> communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community
>> ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ.
>
> I'm going to call shenanigans on this ;-) You have info/data on instal
> based and users? I would indeed be surprised to hear that the HQ community
> had a much larger base than AMQ.
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693948.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by jgenender <jg...@apache.org>.
rajdavies wrote
> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate
> communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community
> ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this ;-) You have info/data on install
based and users? I would indeed be surprised to hear that the HQ community
had a much larger base than AMQ.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693948.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I agree with Hadrian again. It's important for HornetQ to grow its own
community, and one that stretches beyond the Red Hat. A project at Apache
only to satisfy the needs of a single entity does not seem appropriate.
*AMQ-6 Name*
I would also like to re-hash the concern of using the AMQ-6 name. Doing so
raises issues.
Using the name AMQ-6 creates a presumption that HornetQ will whole-sale
replace ActiveMQ 5.x. (Please understand I give 0 credit to the idea that
ActiveMQ 5.x could continue on as ActiveMQ 7.x - that's not reasonable).
While it is good to have a common direction and shared vision, this isn't
the right direction. Using the AMQ-6 name puts users on notice that they
will be expected to switch; I know first hand - I started to worry about
Apollo and my team's efforts on 5.4 back-in-the-day, how much of that work
would need to be revisited, and whether Apollo would continue to meet my
needs or I would need to shop for an entirely new messaging solution.
Which, by the way, proved to be a valid concern since Apollo didn't support
JMS in its earlier releases.
And there were missing-message and duplicate-message bugs I tracked down and
for which I personally contributed fixes; would those problems resurface
with a new solution?
It isn't wise for the ActiveMQ community to put all its users on notice that
they will be expected to switch to the new broker - at least not until we
have reached a point at which we, as a community, are convinced it is ready
to do so. And that's a big "when" - I'm not sure it will ever happen.
*Details and Impacts*
Keep in mind that two solutions to the same problem never take the same
approach, and the detail can easily become overwhelming for users. For
example, while it is very easy to install and start ActiveMQ for the first
time, setting up deployments and configuration management around ActiveMQ
takes time and effort. Moving to a new broker that is a complete rewrite
means that details like these will turn into significant effort for users,
and there's no guarantee that it won't be a blocker for some of them.
So, while the strength of the code is important, it is not the only
consideration. Programmers don't think about these things. Developers do.
We need to consider the entire solution, how it will be used, and the
impacts our decisions will have on others.
*My Vision*
What I would love to see happen here is HornetQ runs as a separate project
and folks who want to see it do well and take over the ActiveMQ market
contribute to it. And, in due time, if it takes over the market, we all
have the opportunity to move and contribute with it, if we so desire.
At the same time, ActiveMQ continues on its own path, preferably with more
folks, from more places who continue to believe in it, have not tired of it,
and are investing in it. Encouraging more committers, PMC members, and
contributors in general.
HornetQ can continue on its path of feature parity with ActiveMQ in order to
ease the transition for ActiveMQ users. And, since ActiveMQ continues on
its own, there's less pressure on HornetQ to adopt every feature.
*Summary*
In summary, I feel strongly that it's the best path forward for HornetQ to
avoid the AMQ-6 name. And I agree that building its own community and
learning the Apache way through the incubation process is valuable and the
best path forward. I hope the HornetQ folks are comfortable to go through
the incubator.
With all of that said, I plan to continue to support ActiveMQ regardless of
the outcome. In that light - anyone who wants to discuss ideas on how to
address open concerns, such as a lack of JMS 2.0 support, I welcome the
discussion; please raise those concerns in separate threads and let's start
the action down the path of resolution.
Art
P.S. I hope to see folks at ApacheCon! I'm going to talk about a vision and
ideas for fixing some of problems AMQ has had for a long time.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693960.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I see how one could get that impression.
It's a shame it wasn't explicit in the original vote. Then we wouldn't have
this confusion. Poor communication is leading to conflict, division, and
discouragement.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693872.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
That's great. I hope I've made it clear that I want to see HornetQ continue
on as well.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693871.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by dlalaina <dl...@gmail.com>.
Actually the most important thing for me is to keep hornetq core alive,
because it's really good.
The (re)name is more a brand thing, amq6, hornetq3, newname1.
My point about using amq name, was more like: "why to create a new amq core,
if there is the possibility to use hornetq core, which is good"
But a rebrand of hornetq (as hornetq or <newname>) as a new apache broker is
awesome too. And communities contributors can migrate or help each other.
Regards,
Daniel La Laina
sent from s4
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693867.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
That's great to hear that you have a large working HornetQ installation.
Why is renaming HornetQ to ActiveMQ-6 important to you?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693863.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Oh, and to your question - yes, it is reasonable to have 2 apache brokers.
There are already many Apache projects sharing spaces.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693864.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
It’s possible for there to be 20+ Apache
brokers.
Apache doesn’t pick winners - we are here
to support all various communities. What’s
becoming increasingly clear to me is that this
is not a single community - there seem to be
several factions within it - which is largely
indicative of an umbrella project and those don’t
lead to a good path at the ASF - and the board has
in the past stepped in in these situations.
I am thinking there is a need to do so here based
on my reading and the situations.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: dlalaina <dl...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:22 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Hello guys, I totally agree with last 2 David posts.
>
>I'm responsible for the messaging and transactions platform/infrastructure
>in Movile.com.
>
>For the last 9 years we tried almost all brokers possibilities, ibm,
>hornetq, amq, openmq, rabbitmq, sqs, etc, etc. And all kind of
>integrations/structures/languages/protocols/etc.
>
>We are running about 150 billion msgs/year, almost 100% in hornetq(70%)
>and
>websphere mq(25%). And these middlewares were chosen for really good
>technical reasons.
>
>My opinion:
>
>hornetq core + improvements(already done in this "amq rc") + compatibility
>with amq5.
>It's awesome, can't be better. What doubts do you still have about this? I
>agree that Amq5 and its community have merits, but it needs a new core,
>and
>I can't see better opportunity.
>
>Is it reasonable to have 2 apache brokers?
>
>Performance/Integrity/Stability/Compatibility
>
>Regards,
>Daniel La Laina
>sent from s4
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>ration-tp4693781p4693862.html
>Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Yes it is absolutely reasonable and possible to have 2 competing
brokers. Competition is good for users. And this is my recommendation at
this point.
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 01:22 PM, dlalaina wrote:
> Hello guys, I totally agree with last 2 David posts.
>
> I'm responsible for the messaging and transactions platform/infrastructure
> in Movile.com.
>
> For the last 9 years we tried almost all brokers possibilities, ibm,
> hornetq, amq, openmq, rabbitmq, sqs, etc, etc. And all kind of
> integrations/structures/languages/protocols/etc.
>
> We are running about 150 billion msgs/year, almost 100% in hornetq(70%) and
> websphere mq(25%). And these middlewares were chosen for really good
> technical reasons.
>
> My opinion:
>
> hornetq core + improvements(already done in this "amq rc") + compatibility
> with amq5.
> It's awesome, can't be better. What doubts do you still have about this? I
> agree that Amq5 and its community have merits, but it needs a new core, and
> I can't see better opportunity.
>
> Is it reasonable to have 2 apache brokers?
>
> Performance/Integrity/Stability/Compatibility
>
> Regards,
> Daniel La Laina
> sent from s4
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693862.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by dlalaina <dl...@gmail.com>.
Hello guys, I totally agree with last 2 David posts.
I'm responsible for the messaging and transactions platform/infrastructure
in Movile.com.
For the last 9 years we tried almost all brokers possibilities, ibm,
hornetq, amq, openmq, rabbitmq, sqs, etc, etc. And all kind of
integrations/structures/languages/protocols/etc.
We are running about 150 billion msgs/year, almost 100% in hornetq(70%) and
websphere mq(25%). And these middlewares were chosen for really good
technical reasons.
My opinion:
hornetq core + improvements(already done in this "amq rc") + compatibility
with amq5.
It's awesome, can't be better. What doubts do you still have about this? I
agree that Amq5 and its community have merits, but it needs a new core, and
I can't see better opportunity.
Is it reasonable to have 2 apache brokers?
Performance/Integrity/Stability/Compatibility
Regards,
Daniel La Laina
sent from s4
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693862.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> What do you mean the ActiveMQ has zero plans?
>
> Do you mean Apache ActiveMQ has zero plans? Seriously Dan?
> Do you speak for the PMC?
No. I speak for myself, but based on what I SEE in the community.
For the last several years, there have not been any real “plans” about future direction of the main codebase. There was the Apollo project for a while and now the code grant, but nothing “major” around the main code base. There have been some new features and enhancements, but they mostly fell into two categories:
1) Stuff pulled back from Apollo if it made sense to do so and could be done easily enough.
2) A couple of “new features” developed by various community members in a “scratch their own itch” type of thing. Definitely nothing wrong with this, that’s great.
But from an OUTSIDE perspective, if you look at the ActiveMQ community, there doesn’t seem to be any concrete direction or plans. Look at the website, read the mailing lists, etc… Nothing. Occasionally a new feature or idea will pop up and once in a while there is a “hey, we did a few cool things, lets build a release”. Hadrian’s bullet bellow is about users and what they see by observing, not the Apache developers/committers in the community.
Basically, my point was that I thought his “point 2” about "confusion in the users community about the future” (he specifically says user community) is almost pointless when it comes to the whole ActiveMQ 6 discussion. Even without the ActiveMQ 6 discussion there is significant confusion.
Dan
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:36 PM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's
>>> I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are
>>> presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
>>>
>>> The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular
>>> vendor and lack of diversity. Until very recently, there were only 2 pmc
>>> votes coming from outside a particular vendor. That was a concern for
>>> many on this thread.
>>>
>>> HornetQ is considered a replacement of ActiveMQ code base, that it
>>> clear from this thread. My concerns are the following:
>>> 1. a future activemq 6 for the current code base becomes impossible;
>>
>> Well, an activemq6 based on the current code base is something I’d
>> consider highly improbable so I wouldn’t consider it a huge issue. In
>> any case, it would only become “impossible” once the 6.0.0 final release
>> is done which COULD be a long ways off.
>>
>>> 2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future
>>> of activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they
>>> wait? )
>>
>> Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or
>> jump to a competitor? What’s your point?
>>
>>> 3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I
>>> understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good
>>> friends)
>>> 4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no
>>> diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
>>
>> And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this
>> addressed. I, for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the
>> RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF. We could possibly get the TomEE and/or
>> Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related. Any of us could look
>> at some of the other missing features and start working on it. That
>> said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get
>> help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members.
>> But again, plenty of time and getting an “M1” out would certainly help.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>> 5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where
>>> there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it.
>>> This is, btw, my biggest issue.
>>>
>>> Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these
>>> reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am
>>> making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It
>>> is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach
>>> consensus.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2015 05:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> Still even more baffled. I haven't seen anything on this list that
>>>> indicates any of the new activemq committters working on activemq6
>>>> think that hornetQ is a thing separate from activemq so how it could be
>>>> important or not is beyond my comprehension. You must have some reason
>>>> to think this based on other evidence, what is it?
>>>>
>>>> I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6.
>>>> AFAICT it hasn't happened in 5 years, what's different now? Who's
>>>> going to do the work? It seems to me that some new people showed up
>>>> enthusiastic to develop new features and brought some code with them
>>>> that no one here has written in the last 5 years, I just don't
>>>> understand why you aren't welcoming the initiative and I don't
>>>> understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover. Is
>>>> someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
>>>>
>>>> I completely agree with Dan.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo
>>>>> hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for
>>>>> something to happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have
>>>>> been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same
>>>>> thing (actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny
>>>>> thing is that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very
>>>>> important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as
>>>>> a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community
>>>>> was desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that
>>>>> activemq will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as
>>>>> disingenuous.
>>>>>
>>>>> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a
>>>>> "new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker
>>>>> though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like
>>>>> "expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested,
>>>>> yes, contributions are also welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why is this all happening? Again?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new
>>>>> board will take a look at this and will provide some guidance.
>>>>> Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest,
>>>>>>> David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with
>>>>>> David’s response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community
>>>>>> as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to
>>>>>> address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to
>>>>>> prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make
>>>>>> sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make
>>>>>> sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep
>>>>>> doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels
>>>>>> it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it
>>>>>> never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community
>>>>>> decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we
>>>>>> start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the
>>>>>> “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and
>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors
>>>>>> willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase
>>>>>> forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No.
>>>>>> It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would
>>>>>> happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors”
>>>>>> have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is
>>>>>> the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they
>>>>>> really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions
>>>>>> from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened
>>>>>> either. So I DO have a concern about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”:
>>>>>> what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can
>>>>>> move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like
>>>>>> JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted
>>>>>> code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features
>>>>>> like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very
>>>>>>>> marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to
>>>>>>>> me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible
>>>>>>>> reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the
>>>>>>>> obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker
>>>>>>>> code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't
>>>>>>>> this what has been happening? What other possible integration
>>>>>>>> strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I
>>>>>>>> really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we
>>>>>>>> just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills
>>>>>>>> to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does
>>>>>>>> that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the
>>>>>>>> features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire
>>>>>>>>> disagreement here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to
>>>>>>>>> be taken as
>>>>>>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ
>>>>>>>>> 6 to
>>>>>>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would
>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have
>>>>>>>>> been this
>>>>>>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path,
>>>>>>>>> and there
>>>>>>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ
>>>>>>>>> folks into
>>>>>>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please
>>>>>>>>> correct me if I
>>>>>>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-ne
>>>>>>>>> xt-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
What do you mean the ActiveMQ has zero plans?
Do you mean Apache ActiveMQ has zero plans? Seriously Dan?
Do you speak for the PMC?
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:36 PM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's
>>I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are
>>presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
>>
>> The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular
>>vendor and lack of diversity. Until very recently, there were only 2 pmc
>>votes coming from outside a particular vendor. That was a concern for
>>many on this thread.
>>
>> HornetQ is considered a replacement of ActiveMQ code base, that it
>>clear from this thread. My concerns are the following:
>> 1. a future activemq 6 for the current code base becomes impossible;
>
>Well, an activemq6 based on the current code base is something I’d
>consider highly improbable so I wouldn’t consider it a huge issue. In
>any case, it would only become “impossible” once the 6.0.0 final release
>is done which COULD be a long ways off.
>
>> 2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future
>>of activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they
>>wait? )
>
>Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or
>jump to a competitor? What’s your point?
>
>> 3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I
>>understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good
>>friends)
>> 4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no
>>diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
>
>And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this
>addressed. I, for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the
>RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF. We could possibly get the TomEE and/or
>Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related. Any of us could look
>at some of the other missing features and start working on it. That
>said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get
>help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members.
>But again, plenty of time and getting an “M1” out would certainly help.
>
>Dan
>
>
>> 5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where
>>there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it.
>>This is, btw, my biggest issue.
>>
>> Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these
>>reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am
>>making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It
>>is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach
>>consensus.
>>
>> Best,
>> Hadrian
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 05:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> Still even more baffled. I haven't seen anything on this list that
>>>indicates any of the new activemq committters working on activemq6
>>>think that hornetQ is a thing separate from activemq so how it could be
>>>important or not is beyond my comprehension. You must have some reason
>>>to think this based on other evidence, what is it?
>>>
>>> I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6.
>>>AFAICT it hasn't happened in 5 years, what's different now? Who's
>>>going to do the work? It seems to me that some new people showed up
>>>enthusiastic to develop new features and brought some code with them
>>>that no one here has written in the last 5 years, I just don't
>>>understand why you aren't welcoming the initiative and I don't
>>>understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover. Is
>>>someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
>>>
>>> I completely agree with Dan.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo
>>>>hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for
>>>>something to happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have
>>>>been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
>>>>
>>>> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same
>>>>thing (actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny
>>>>thing is that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very
>>>>important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as
>>>>a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community
>>>>was desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that
>>>>activemq will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as
>>>>disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a
>>>>"new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker
>>>>though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like
>>>>"expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested,
>>>>yes, contributions are also welcome.
>>>>
>>>> So why is this all happening? Again?
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new
>>>>board will take a look at this and will provide some guidance.
>>>>Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest,
>>>>>>David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with
>>>>>David’s response.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community
>>>>>as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to
>>>>>address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to
>>>>>prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make
>>>>>sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make
>>>>>sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep
>>>>>doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels
>>>>>it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it
>>>>>never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community
>>>>>decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we
>>>>>start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the
>>>>>“6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and
>>>>>control.
>>>>>
>>>>> From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors
>>>>>willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase
>>>>>forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No.
>>>>> It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would
>>>>>happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors”
>>>>>have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is
>>>>>the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they
>>>>>really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions
>>>>>from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened
>>>>>either. So I DO have a concern about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”:
>>>>>what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can
>>>>>move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like
>>>>>JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>>>>
>>>>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted
>>>>>code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features
>>>>>like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very
>>>>>>>marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to
>>>>>>>me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible
>>>>>>>reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the
>>>>>>>obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker
>>>>>>>code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't
>>>>>>>this what has been happening? What other possible integration
>>>>>>>strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I
>>>>>>>really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we
>>>>>>>just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills
>>>>>>>to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does
>>>>>>>that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the
>>>>>>>features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire
>>>>>>>>disagreement here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to
>>>>>>>>be taken as
>>>>>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be
>>>>>>>>made
>>>>>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ
>>>>>>>>6 to
>>>>>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would
>>>>>>>>have been
>>>>>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have
>>>>>>>>been this
>>>>>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path,
>>>>>>>>and there
>>>>>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ
>>>>>>>>folks into
>>>>>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please
>>>>>>>>correct me if I
>>>>>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-ne
>>>>>>>>xt-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>--
>Daniel Kulp
>dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
I’m unsure how those claiming to not see an issue don’t see this one. It’s more akin to a take over of a brand than a team moving to a new technology. There’s the HornetQ team and the AMQ5 team with depressingly little cross over. That should’ve been goal number one. Merging the teams in to one with a common goal (which personally I hope is HornetQ). Just saying suck it to the long term AMQ committers indirectly and then responding with righteous indignation when called on it is just cause for more division.
There’s been lots of indirect insults thrown at the current AMQ committers. That’s a poor way to build consensus.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> That said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by se...@gmail.com.
Been quiet on this for a long time.
I am a contractor, not a committer, nor PMC, I’ve done countless hours of
ActiveMQ classes, training and consulting.
davsclaus commented 5 hours ago
No description provided.
davsclaus commented 5 hours ago
There were 2 left over comments about hornetmq in the activemq6 source code. Now a git grep returns empty
davsclaus:~/workspace/activemq-6 (polish)/$ git grep -i "hornetmq"
HornetQBot commented 5 hours ago
Can one of the admins verify this patch by saying "ok to test"?
Polish and renamed hornetmq to activemq-6
31cdedc
clebertsuconic commented on 31cdedc 5 hours ago
Nice catch
davsclaus commented on 31cdedc 5 hours ago
Oh just spotted that running
git grep -i "hornet"
Shows some more code that likely could be migrated too.
And there is code comments that refer to the old jboss issue tracker. Not sure what the best approach is there.
eg such as a comment as
// that was happening under https://issues.jboss.org/browse/HORNETQ-988
But there is some more which should be fixed such as
docs/quickstart-guide/en/running.md: 11:05:10,848 INFO [org.apache.activemq.core.server] HQ221001: ActiveMQ Server version 2.5.0.SNAPSHOT (Wild Hornet, 125) [e32ae252-52ee-11e4-a716-7785dc3013a3
docs/user-manual/en/management.md: {"timestamp":1422019706,"status":200,"request":{"mbean":"org.apache.activemq:module=Core,type=Server","attribute":"Version","type":"read"},"value":"6.0.0.SNAPSHOT (Activ
etc/checkstyle.xml: <!-- developed at https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq-checkstyle-checks -->
etc/checkstyle.xml: <module name="org.hornetq.checks.annotation.RequiredAnnotation">
asfbot commented 5 hours ago
ActiveMQ6-PR-Build #222 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
jbertram commented 5 hours ago
The references to "HornetMQ" probably weren't caught earlier because nobody thought to search for "HornetMQ" since the broker's name is "HornetQ" (without the "M").
I think that any JIRA links which reference the HORNETQ project should stay as is so historical information remains in-tact.
I also think the references in checkstyle.xml are also legit since they reference code used for checkstyle checks.
clebertsuconic commented 4 hours ago
I contributed that check style I wrote to check style. They refactored it and I'm waiting to be released on their satellite project before I can remove this and replace it.
So as a user of ActiveMQ, I guess I’m left reading this as - we are re-writing the history, names and lira so we can say this is ActiveMQ.
Why is the activemq name so important?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or jump to a competitor? What’s your point?
> Actually, yes, there are organizations that expand their activemq
> operations based on the current code base. Not sure about new users. I
> heard of users who started to use RabbitMQ.
>>> 3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good friends)
>>> 4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
>> And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this addressed. I, for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF. We could possibly get the TomEE and/or Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related. Any of us could look at some of the other missing features and start working on it. That said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members. But again, plenty of time and getting an “M1” out would certainly help.
> In theory, maybe. In practice, what I see is that HornetQ is another
> thing that will replace the existing code, i.e. *community*. The way I
> read it is that the existing community members have to choose between
> the hornet "new" way and the highway. Not that there are that many
> outside of one big camp.
> I suggested a simple name change, giving all the time necessary for the
> alignment you mentioned and yes, from my point of view it would have
> been ok, it's clear that it's a different thing, but in time, it could
> be aligned and we could have made a decision later based on the state of
> the code and the state of the community. But no, the answer was: "we
> want the name". Which I translated to "we want our project to take over
> the activemq community, and maybe we'll make some concessions along the
> way". That pushed my buttons.
>>> 5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it. This is, btw, my biggest issue.
> Well, this hasn't been disputed, so nothing to comment on.
>>> Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach consensus.
> Nor was this.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
> Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or jump to a competitor? What’s your point?
Actually, yes, there are organizations that expand their activemq
operations based on the current code base. Not sure about new users. I
heard of users who started to use RabbitMQ.
>> 3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good friends)
>> 4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
> And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this addressed. I, for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF. We could possibly get the TomEE and/or Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related. Any of us could look at some of the other missing features and start working on it. That said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members. But again, plenty of time and getting an “M1” out would certainly help.
In theory, maybe. In practice, what I see is that HornetQ is another
thing that will replace the existing code, i.e. *community*. The way I
read it is that the existing community members have to choose between
the hornet "new" way and the highway. Not that there are that many
outside of one big camp.
I suggested a simple name change, giving all the time necessary for the
alignment you mentioned and yes, from my point of view it would have
been ok, it's clear that it's a different thing, but in time, it could
be aligned and we could have made a decision later based on the state of
the code and the state of the community. But no, the answer was: "we
want the name". Which I translated to "we want our project to take over
the activemq community, and maybe we'll make some concessions along the
way". That pushed my buttons.
>> 5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it. This is, btw, my biggest issue.
Well, this hasn't been disputed, so nothing to comment on.
>> Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach consensus.
Nor was this.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
>
> The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular vendor and lack of diversity. Until very recently, there were only 2 pmc votes coming from outside a particular vendor. That was a concern for many on this thread.
>
> HornetQ is considered a replacement of ActiveMQ code base, that it clear from this thread. My concerns are the following:
> 1. a future activemq 6 for the current code base becomes impossible;
Well, an activemq6 based on the current code base is something I’d consider highly improbable so I wouldn’t consider it a huge issue. In any case, it would only become “impossible” once the 6.0.0 final release is done which COULD be a long ways off.
> 2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future of activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they wait? )
Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or jump to a competitor? What’s your point?
> 3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good friends)
> 4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
And there is plenty of time between now and 6.0.0 release to get this addressed. I, for one, am looking at the rest component to replace the RestEasy/Netty stuff with CXF. We could possibly get the TomEE and/or Geromino folks to help look at things JMS2 related. Any of us could look at some of the other missing features and start working on it. That said, the amq6 folks DO need to find ways to reach out and try and get help from both the current AMQ5 committers as well as new members. But again, plenty of time and getting an “M1” out would certainly help.
Dan
> 5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it. This is, btw, my biggest issue.
>
> Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach consensus.
>
> Best,
> Hadrian
>
> On 03/26/2015 05:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> Still even more baffled. I haven't seen anything on this list that indicates any of the new activemq committters working on activemq6 think that hornetQ is a thing separate from activemq so how it could be important or not is beyond my comprehension. You must have some reason to think this based on other evidence, what is it?
>>
>> I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6. AFAICT it hasn't happened in 5 years, what's different now? Who's going to do the work? It seems to me that some new people showed up enthusiastic to develop new features and brought some code with them that no one here has written in the last 5 years, I just don't understand why you aren't welcoming the initiative and I don't understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover. Is someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
>>
>> I completely agree with Dan.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
>>>
>>> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same thing (actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny thing is that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community was desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that activemq will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as disingenuous.
>>>
>>> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a "new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like "expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested, yes, contributions are also welcome.
>>>
>>> So why is this all happening? Again?
>>>
>>> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new board will take a look at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s response.
>>>>
>>>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and control.
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No. It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either. So I DO have a concern about that.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”: what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>>>
>>>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>>>>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>>>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>>>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>>>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>>>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>>>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>>>>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>>>>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>>>>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
My plans for ActiveMQ? Continue to support the current user base. Art's
I don't know, ask him. I will point out, however that me and Art are
presenting at ApacheCon on ActiveMQ in less than a month.
The ActiveMQ community has a long history of abuses from one particular
vendor and lack of diversity. Until very recently, there were only 2 pmc
votes coming from outside a particular vendor. That was a concern for
many on this thread.
HornetQ is considered a replacement of ActiveMQ code base, that it clear
from this thread. My concerns are the following:
1. a future activemq 6 for the current code base becomes impossible;
2. there is confusion created in the users community about the future of
activemq (should they invest in the current activemq? should they wait? )
3. this is the second attempt after Apollo (and don't get me wrong, I
understand the technical merits and I consider some of the authors good
friends)
4. the way things look for activemq6, there will be *absolutely no
diversity* and it will be a one vendor show.
5. hornetq being in activemq creates the illusion of diversity where
there is none; in the incubator, the project will need to work on it.
This is, btw, my biggest issue.
Then you probably agree with Dan on the eulogy part as well. For these
reasons, and the length, the tone and passion around this topic, I am
making it my duty to take this issue to the board and ask for advice. It
is crystal clear that the activemq community will not be able to reach
consensus.
Best,
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 05:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Still even more baffled. I haven't seen anything on this list that indicates any of the new activemq committters working on activemq6 think that hornetQ is a thing separate from activemq so how it could be important or not is beyond my comprehension. You must have some reason to think this based on other evidence, what is it?
>
> I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6. AFAICT it hasn't happened in 5 years, what's different now? Who's going to do the work? It seems to me that some new people showed up enthusiastic to develop new features and brought some code with them that no one here has written in the last 5 years, I just don't understand why you aren't welcoming the initiative and I don't understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover. Is someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
>
> I completely agree with Dan.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
>>
>> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same thing (actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny thing is that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community was desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that activemq will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as disingenuous.
>>
>> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a "new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like "expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested, yes, contributions are also welcome.
>>
>> So why is this all happening? Again?
>>
>> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new board will take a look at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>>>
>>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s response.
>>>
>>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and control.
>>>
>>> From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No. It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either. So I DO have a concern about that.
>>>
>>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”: what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>>
>>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>>>
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>>>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>>>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>>>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>>>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Still even more baffled. I haven't seen anything on this list that indicates any of the new activemq committters working on activemq6 think that hornetQ is a thing separate from activemq so how it could be important or not is beyond my comprehension. You must have some reason to think this based on other evidence, what is it?
I'm also completely baffled by you and Art's plans for activemq6. AFAICT it hasn't happened in 5 years, what's different now? Who's going to do the work? It seems to me that some new people showed up enthusiastic to develop new features and brought some code with them that no one here has written in the last 5 years, I just don't understand why you aren't welcoming the initiative and I don't understand what is hostile about this or how it's a takeover. Is someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want?
I completely agree with Dan.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
>
> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same thing (actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny thing is that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community was desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that activemq will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as disingenuous.
>
> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a "new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like "expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested, yes, contributions are also welcome.
>
> So why is this all happening? Again?
>
> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new board will take a look at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>>
>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s response.
>>
>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>
>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and control.
>>
>> From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No. It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either. So I DO have a concern about that.
>>
>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”: what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>
>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>>>>
>>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to happen there.
That’s certainly possible, but that doesn’t change where we are today.
> I could also argue that cxf should have been an axis2 subproject called axis3.
This situation is very different. Not a single one of Axis2 developers thought that the proposed CXF architecture was a better architecture and was a way forward to solve their own issues. Quite the opposite in fact. They thought the CXF ideas were significantly worse and not a good path forward. Plus, the active Axis2 developers had full plans, a roadmap, active feature development, etc… toward future versions of Axis2. In addition, the CXF developers had no plans (and still don’t) to help folks migrate from Axis(1/2) to CXF. Neither side of the fence really had any interest in the other side. This is different in that we have some folks from AMQ5 thinking that the new code is definitely the right thing to do, we have the folks from the new codebase excited about getting it to be the way forward by working on the enhancements needed to get it there. I’d like to foster that excitement rather than stifle it which I think this thread is beginning to do.
> I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same thing (actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny thing is that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very important for hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as a key ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community was desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that activemq will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as disingenuous.
I agree about the eulogy thing. I see no reason why releases of 6.x would have any impact on possible enhancements and fixes to 5.x (if we get any). CXF still supports 2.7 yet 3.1 is coming out soon. Karaf is supporting and enhancing 2.x, 3.x, and working on 4.x. Ideally, a user could use 5.x and 6.x together in a cluster/network, but we’re likely a ways away from that.
> If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a "new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like "expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested, yes, contributions are also welcome.
And how does having a 6.x version in development change any of that? If people have some fixes or enhancements they need for 5.x, great!
Dan
>
> So why is this all happening? Again?
>
> I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new board will take a look at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I don't think I have much to add.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>>
>> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s response.
>>
>> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>>
>> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and control.
>>
>> From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No. It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either. So I DO have a concern about that.
>>
>> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”: what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>>
>> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>>>>
>>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt
the evolution of activemq 5, because everybody waited for something to
happen there. I could also argue that cxf should have been an axis2
subproject called axis3.
I did buy the premise a week ago, and I would have said the same thing
(actually I might have said it). But now I don't. The funny thing is
that nobody even tried to deny that the activemq6 is very important for
hornetq and, as it seems, perceived by its proponents as a key
ingredient to its success. And nobody in the activemq community was
desperately shopping for a new broker 6 mo ago out of fear that activemq
will die. For that reason I consider the activemq eulogies as disingenuous.
If one pays attention to the users@ community, users don't ask for a
"new" broker. There were questions about the future of the v5 broker
though. And there was an answer (iirc from Gary) saying something like
"expect that to get very stable". There are some features requested,
yes, contributions are also welcome.
So why is this all happening? Again?
I think it's a moot point now, anyway, because I believe the new board
will take a look at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I
don't think I have much to add.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well happen in the incubator.
>
> Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s response.
>
> In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
>
> I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and control.
>
> From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No. It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either. So I DO have a concern about that.
>
> Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”: what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
>
> And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>
>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>>>
>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>
>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>
>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well happen in the incubator.
Personally, I’d prefer it to be done here. I completely agree with David’s response.
In a separate community, it would be completely up to that community as to weather any of the ActiveMQ migration ‘issues’ are important to address or not. Doing it here means that not only do we get to prioritize that, but we’d also have (hopefully) the expertise to make sure those issues are addressed. To me, that’s the best way to make sure the “next” ActiveMQ is actually a better ActiveMQ.
I don’t see why it cannot be "released" as 6.0.0-M1. We can keep doing M# versions until it gets to a point where the community feels it really is a “reasonable drop in” replacement for AMQ5. If it never gets there, fine. If it does, great! If the community decides that going with an “enhanced” AMQ5 based thing for 6.0, we start doing M# based on that code until THAT is ready. Until the “6.0.0” final release is done, we have a lot of flexibility and control.
From my perspective: do I see ANY of the current AMQ5 contributors willing to spend the time and effort to move the AMQ5 codebase forward to a completely new and enhanced architecture and such? No. It hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, I’m not sure why it would happen now. Except for Art, all of the most “active contributors” have pretty much stated that the new AMQ6 codebase from the grant is the better way forward. That says a lot to me. That said, if they really believed that, I also would have expected some contributions from those committers to the new code base and that hasn’t happened either. So I DO have a concern about that.
Anyway, those that are objecting to this being called “6.0.0-m1”: what are your proposals and thoughts about how the AMQ community can move forward? Are you guys going to take up all the new work like JMS2.0, core scalability, etc…?
And to those that like the idea of moving forward with the granted code: are you willing to start helping to add the missing features like the kahadb stuff and OSGi support and basic web console and such?
Dan
>
> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>
>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>>
>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>
>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>
>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>>> have it wrong).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
It should be totally obvious by now that not everyone saw the initial proposal as a wholesale replacement with HornetQ and then some code taken from the horribly slow and rudderless AMQ5. You’re seeing a LOT of “wait a minutes…” now that it is clear. You don’t buy it but it’s still the feeling (true or not). I’m sorry you’re unable to empathize with the many here who feel that way. But its the reality we’re facing. If we want to see HornetQ become the new core (I do). Then it’s time to take a step back, and start building support in the community.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:07 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> I thought that was the initial proposal thread where I didn't see anyone saying even "wait a minute…" So I don't buy that this was forced down anyones throat. And if it was totally clear to me, who just barely manages to follow the lists occasionally, that the proposal was to use the hornetq broker with all the non-broker activemq goodies I really don't see how anyone more involved could have thought differently.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I thought that was the initial proposal thread where I didn't see anyone saying even "wait a minute…" So I don't buy that this was forced down anyones throat. And if it was totally clear to me, who just barely manages to follow the lists occasionally, that the proposal was to use the hornetq broker with all the non-broker activemq goodies I really don't see how anyone more involved could have thought differently.
I'm repeating myself from another message, but what I'm getting from Hadrian and Art is "innovation not welcome here". I'm sure that's not what they intend so I hope they can rephrase what they are saying so it's clearer at least to me.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:42 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> I therefore see the opportunity to integrate the hornetQ broker as an incredible opportunity for the activemq community and totally don't understand why all the pre-existing committers aren't contributing twice as much as the new ones to the integration. (unfortunately I don't have time or I would be working on jca integration and osgi-ification) If they were, I think everyone would think there was one community, not two.
>>
>
> Yes, the HornetQ committers are working hard to make HornetQ the next ActiveMQ, the AMQ committers aren't doing the same (yet). You’re right, if everyone just followed the demands that they go down the path chosen by only one side then it would be one community. Again, that’s not how you build community. Propose a path with solid justification and sell that in the community. Forcing a path only fragments the community as we’re seeing now. That’s why you don’t see the AMQ side working twice as hard as the HornetQ side. I fully understand that part.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:42 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> I therefore see the opportunity to integrate the hornetQ broker as an incredible opportunity for the activemq community and totally don't understand why all the pre-existing committers aren't contributing twice as much as the new ones to the integration. (unfortunately I don't have time or I would be working on jca integration and osgi-ification) If they were, I think everyone would think there was one community, not two.
>
Yes, the HornetQ committers are working hard to make HornetQ the next ActiveMQ, the AMQ committers aren't doing the same (yet). You’re right, if everyone just followed the demands that they go down the path chosen by only one side then it would be one community. Again, that’s not how you build community. Propose a path with solid justification and sell that in the community. Forcing a path only fragments the community as we’re seeing now. That’s why you don’t see the AMQ side working twice as hard as the HornetQ side. I fully understand that part.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
David, I strongly encourage you to become the Champion for HornetQ, lead
it through incubation, pull whatever pleases you from ActiveMQ, as
little or as much as you want and prove your point. Forget the
antiquated ActiveMQ.
It pains me that after all this talk you still dodge the community
aspect. As an ASF member I expect much, much more from you.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 02:42 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think I'm the only one saying what you characterize as insults, and I don't think you got my point, which I still stand behind.
>
> I don't think activemq has a long term future without a scalable broker. it's a bit different, but would tomcat have a long term future if they only supported servlet 2.3? I think this is completely obvious. The time scale might be 5 or 10 years, but at some point without scalability no one will be interested. I expect that in a couple of years if you want to run activemq on your phone, scalability will be important. That's the technical merit I'm talking about.
>
> I don't think Hiram would have started Apollo if it were technically feasible to make the current broker scalable.
>
> I don't see anyone else in the existing community making any effort to write a new broker after Apollo. With some recent comments this might be changing. Good.
>
> I therefore see the opportunity to integrate the hornetQ broker as an incredible opportunity for the activemq community and totally don't understand why all the pre-existing committers aren't contributing twice as much as the new ones to the integration. (unfortunately I don't have time or I would be working on jca integration and osgi-ification) If they were, I think everyone would think there was one community, not two.
>
> I'm starting to think that there were pre-existing problems in the community that this integration effort has brought more into focus for some. I don't think making hornetq go away will do anything to fix these problems, although it might hide them for a while longer. I continue to think the best outcome for activemq would be to continue the integration work inside activemq under some innocuous name and work on improving how the community works.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stats for the last 12 months (jan - jan) show both projects about equal. Hornetq has an edge on number of committers but not a big one.
>>
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq <https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq>
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq <https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq>
>>
>> I have read the history and I still don’t think things have been presented as clearly and openly as you think. Plus all the unnecessary insults (ActiveMQ will die without HornetQ, No one will choose ActiveMQ based on technical merit, etc) from various folks have done nothing but foster division not community.
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this - and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and now you start calling foul? go back and read the history.
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I think I'm the only one saying what you characterize as insults, and I don't think you got my point, which I still stand behind.
I don't think activemq has a long term future without a scalable broker. it's a bit different, but would tomcat have a long term future if they only supported servlet 2.3? I think this is completely obvious. The time scale might be 5 or 10 years, but at some point without scalability no one will be interested. I expect that in a couple of years if you want to run activemq on your phone, scalability will be important. That's the technical merit I'm talking about.
I don't think Hiram would have started Apollo if it were technically feasible to make the current broker scalable.
I don't see anyone else in the existing community making any effort to write a new broker after Apollo. With some recent comments this might be changing. Good.
I therefore see the opportunity to integrate the hornetQ broker as an incredible opportunity for the activemq community and totally don't understand why all the pre-existing committers aren't contributing twice as much as the new ones to the integration. (unfortunately I don't have time or I would be working on jca integration and osgi-ification) If they were, I think everyone would think there was one community, not two.
I'm starting to think that there were pre-existing problems in the community that this integration effort has brought more into focus for some. I don't think making hornetq go away will do anything to fix these problems, although it might hide them for a while longer. I continue to think the best outcome for activemq would be to continue the integration work inside activemq under some innocuous name and work on improving how the community works.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stats for the last 12 months (jan - jan) show both projects about equal. Hornetq has an edge on number of committers but not a big one.
>
> https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq <https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq>
> https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq <https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq>
>
> I have read the history and I still don’t think things have been presented as clearly and openly as you think. Plus all the unnecessary insults (ActiveMQ will die without HornetQ, No one will choose ActiveMQ based on technical merit, etc) from various folks have done nothing but foster division not community.
>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this - and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and now you start calling foul? go back and read the history.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
Stats for the last 12 months (jan - jan) show both projects about equal. Hornetq has an edge on number of committers but not a big one.
https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq <https://www.openhub.net/p/hornetq>
https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq <https://www.openhub.net/p/activemq>
I have read the history and I still don’t think things have been presented as clearly and openly as you think. Plus all the unnecessary insults (ActiveMQ will die without HornetQ, No one will choose ActiveMQ based on technical merit, etc) from various folks have done nothing but foster division not community.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this - and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and now you start calling foul? go back and read the history.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
I second Hadrian there.
Regards
JB
On 03/27/2015 05:57 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> If that is true, that's one more reason to grow the project in the
> incubator. You are basically confirming yet again, that we have a RH
> community taking over the ActiveMQ community.
>
> That large community you mention should go through the incubation
> process and getting used to the Apache Way in the incubator, not the
> ActiveMQ pmc which is already heavily biased towards the same vendor. In
> my strong opinion, echoed by others, this will help the activemq
> community. And it's not only bringing committers in the PMC, it's also
> bringing in many contributors (for a significant number of years) as
> committers.
>
> And by the way, initially I was quite neutral. It is this thread that
> convinced me that the two communities should evolve separately.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 03/27/2015 12:15 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
>> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate
>> communities together - they didn't need more committers - their
>> community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than
>> ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this
>> - and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a
>> repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and now you start calling foul? go back and
>> read the history.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 15:28, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. "merge good stuff
>>> from 5.x into the code donation", can very well be done in the
>>> incubator. The discussion I am trying to have is about the
>>> *community*, core value of the "Apache Way". The sooner that is
>>> understood the better.
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>> On 03/27/2015 10:52 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
>>>> There has been a lot said about the intent of the HornetQ donation so
>>>> let me just clear up a few things.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the naming, the idea to use ActiveMQ6 for the repo name came
>>>> from this discussion thread:
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html.
>>>>
>>>> The original idea was to reuse the Apollo name but then consensus
>>>> emerged around activemq-6. The idea to use version 6.0.0 followed from
>>>> the repo name. Maybe 10.0.0-M1 would have been a better choice to
>>>> signal
>>>> a large change and leave room for 5.x to grow.
>>>>
>>>> Since agreement was made to accept the donation [1] [2], lots of work
>>>> has been done to get ready for an initial release, this involved
>>>> rebranding, removing all CatX dependencies and a general clean up.
>>>>
>>>> The intent is to merge the good stuff of 5.x with the code donation and
>>>> support migration. There has been some good progress here. We have
>>>> preliminary Openwire support for backward compatibility with 5.x
>>>> clients
>>>> and work has started to address some of the feature gaps, e.g., adding
>>>> auto creation of destinations and reusing the ActiveMQ Filter code.
>>>> There’s obviously more work to do but this is just the initial release
>>>> that completes the IP clearance process. Going forward, I’d like to see
>>>> us collectively develop a feature backlog for subsequent milestone
>>>> releases. At some point in the future, the community might decide that
>>>> the new core becomes the primary deliverable from the project but that
>>>> should happen organically with no rush.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4685833.html
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4686006.html
>>>>
>>>>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
If that is true, that's one more reason to grow the project in the
incubator. You are basically confirming yet again, that we have a RH
community taking over the ActiveMQ community.
That large community you mention should go through the incubation
process and getting used to the Apache Way in the incubator, not the
ActiveMQ pmc which is already heavily biased towards the same vendor. In
my strong opinion, echoed by others, this will help the activemq
community. And it's not only bringing committers in the PMC, it's also
bringing in many contributors (for a significant number of years) as
committers.
And by the way, initially I was quite neutral. It is this thread that
convinced me that the two communities should evolve separately.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 12:15 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this - and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and now you start calling foul? go back and read the history.
>
>
>
>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 15:28, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. "merge good stuff from 5.x into the code donation", can very well be done in the incubator. The discussion I am trying to have is about the *community*, core value of the "Apache Way". The sooner that is understood the better.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>> On 03/27/2015 10:52 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
>>> There has been a lot said about the intent of the HornetQ donation so
>>> let me just clear up a few things.
>>>
>>> Regarding the naming, the idea to use ActiveMQ6 for the repo name came
>>> from this discussion thread:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html.
>>> The original idea was to reuse the Apollo name but then consensus
>>> emerged around activemq-6. The idea to use version 6.0.0 followed from
>>> the repo name. Maybe 10.0.0-M1 would have been a better choice to signal
>>> a large change and leave room for 5.x to grow.
>>>
>>> Since agreement was made to accept the donation [1] [2], lots of work
>>> has been done to get ready for an initial release, this involved
>>> rebranding, removing all CatX dependencies and a general clean up.
>>>
>>> The intent is to merge the good stuff of 5.x with the code donation and
>>> support migration. There has been some good progress here. We have
>>> preliminary Openwire support for backward compatibility with 5.x clients
>>> and work has started to address some of the feature gaps, e.g., adding
>>> auto creation of destinations and reusing the ActiveMQ Filter code.
>>> There’s obviously more work to do but this is just the initial release
>>> that completes the IP clearance process. Going forward, I’d like to see
>>> us collectively develop a feature backlog for subsequent milestone
>>> releases. At some point in the future, the community might decide that
>>> the new core becomes the primary deliverable from the project but that
>>> should happen organically with no rush.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4685833.html
>>> [2]
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4686006.html
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this - and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and now you start calling foul? go back and read the history.
> On 27 Mar 2015, at 15:28, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. "merge good stuff from 5.x into the code donation", can very well be done in the incubator. The discussion I am trying to have is about the *community*, core value of the "Apache Way". The sooner that is understood the better.
>
> Hadrian
>
>> On 03/27/2015 10:52 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
>> There has been a lot said about the intent of the HornetQ donation so
>> let me just clear up a few things.
>>
>> Regarding the naming, the idea to use ActiveMQ6 for the repo name came
>> from this discussion thread:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html.
>> The original idea was to reuse the Apollo name but then consensus
>> emerged around activemq-6. The idea to use version 6.0.0 followed from
>> the repo name. Maybe 10.0.0-M1 would have been a better choice to signal
>> a large change and leave room for 5.x to grow.
>>
>> Since agreement was made to accept the donation [1] [2], lots of work
>> has been done to get ready for an initial release, this involved
>> rebranding, removing all CatX dependencies and a general clean up.
>>
>> The intent is to merge the good stuff of 5.x with the code donation and
>> support migration. There has been some good progress here. We have
>> preliminary Openwire support for backward compatibility with 5.x clients
>> and work has started to address some of the feature gaps, e.g., adding
>> auto creation of destinations and reusing the ActiveMQ Filter code.
>> There’s obviously more work to do but this is just the initial release
>> that completes the IP clearance process. Going forward, I’d like to see
>> us collectively develop a feature backlog for subsequent milestone
>> releases. At some point in the future, the community might decide that
>> the new core becomes the primary deliverable from the project but that
>> should happen organically with no rush.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4685833.html
>> [2]
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4686006.html
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. "merge good stuff
from 5.x into the code donation", can very well be done in the
incubator. The discussion I am trying to have is about the *community*,
core value of the "Apache Way". The sooner that is understood the better.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 10:52 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
> There has been a lot said about the intent of the HornetQ donation so
> let me just clear up a few things.
>
> Regarding the naming, the idea to use ActiveMQ6 for the repo name came
> from this discussion thread:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html.
> The original idea was to reuse the Apollo name but then consensus
> emerged around activemq-6. The idea to use version 6.0.0 followed from
> the repo name. Maybe 10.0.0-M1 would have been a better choice to signal
> a large change and leave room for 5.x to grow.
>
> Since agreement was made to accept the donation [1] [2], lots of work
> has been done to get ready for an initial release, this involved
> rebranding, removing all CatX dependencies and a general clean up.
>
> The intent is to merge the good stuff of 5.x with the code donation and
> support migration. There has been some good progress here. We have
> preliminary Openwire support for backward compatibility with 5.x clients
> and work has started to address some of the feature gaps, e.g., adding
> auto creation of destinations and reusing the ActiveMQ Filter code.
> There’s obviously more work to do but this is just the initial release
> that completes the IP clearance process. Going forward, I’d like to see
> us collectively develop a feature backlog for subsequent milestone
> releases. At some point in the future, the community might decide that
> the new core becomes the primary deliverable from the project but that
> should happen organically with no rush.
>
> [1]
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4685833.html
> [2]
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4686006.html
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
There has been a lot said about the intent of the HornetQ donation so
let me just clear up a few things.
Regarding the naming, the idea to use ActiveMQ6 for the repo name came
from this discussion thread:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html.
The original idea was to reuse the Apollo name but then consensus
emerged around activemq-6. The idea to use version 6.0.0 followed from
the repo name. Maybe 10.0.0-M1 would have been a better choice to signal
a large change and leave room for 5.x to grow.
Since agreement was made to accept the donation [1] [2], lots of work
has been done to get ready for an initial release, this involved
rebranding, removing all CatX dependencies and a general clean up.
The intent is to merge the good stuff of 5.x with the code donation and
support migration. There has been some good progress here. We have
preliminary Openwire support for backward compatibility with 5.x clients
and work has started to address some of the feature gaps, e.g., adding
auto creation of destinations and reusing the ActiveMQ Filter code.
There’s obviously more work to do but this is just the initial release
that completes the IP clearance process. Going forward, I’d like to see
us collectively develop a feature backlog for subsequent milestone
releases. At some point in the future, the community might decide that
the new core becomes the primary deliverable from the project but that
should happen organically with no rush.
[1]
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4685833.html
[2]
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4686006.html
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi John,
It wasn't so clear to me, I probably missed this part.
Regards
JB
On 03/26/2015 08:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David,
>> can very well happen in the incubator.
>>
>
>
> I think it's important to read Clebert's initial email on the subject of
> donation:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>
> To me, this reads exactly to what occurred here - a new broker.
>
> John
>
>
>
>>
>> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal
>>> involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if
>>> wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in
>>> hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy
>>> to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker
>>> bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other
>>> possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it
>>> again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we
>>> just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write
>>> a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us,
>>> let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and
>>> is as compatible as we can make it.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be
>>>> taken as
>>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>>
>>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and
>>>> there
>>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>>
>>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks
>>>> into
>>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me
>>>> if I
>>>> have it wrong).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>> tp4693781p4693856.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David,
> can very well happen in the incubator.
>
I think it's important to read Clebert's initial email on the subject of
donation:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
To me, this reads exactly to what occurred here - a new broker.
John
>
> The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal
>> involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if
>> wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in
>> hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy
>> to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker
>> bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other
>> possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it
>> again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we
>> just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write
>> a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us,
>> let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and
>> is as compatible as we can make it.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement
>>> here.
>>>
>>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be
>>> taken as
>>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>>
>>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and
>>> there
>>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>>
>>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks
>>> into
>>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me
>>> if I
>>> have it wrong).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>> tp4693781p4693856.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David,
can very well happen in the incubator.
The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover.
Hadrian
On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
>>> 5.x needs a new core.
>>
>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>>
>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>>
>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
>> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>>
>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
>> have it wrong).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and is as compatible as we can make it.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>> 5.x needs a new core.
>
> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
>
> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
>
> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
> would be no reason to discuss it now.
>
> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
> have it wrong).
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
> 5.x needs a new core.
I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here.
The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as
a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have
mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made
available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base.
If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to
replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been
very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this
same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there
would be no reason to discuss it now.
Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into
the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I
have it wrong).
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Hadrian,
working through your rationale
on 1, there is nothing stopping any member from educating themselves
and making informed decisions.
on 2, the existing committers identify the synergy that is possible
between the code bases. That too comes from education via the code.
on 3, what is the basis for that statement?
To my mind there is a big mix up between a code grant and hijacking a
community. The grant is in good faith and has been accepted in good
faith. 5.x needs a new core. If 6.0.1 or 6.0.2 or whatever it is
called does not fly let 5.x skip 6 and go to 7. The versioning thing
is not a big deal. The reason 6.0 is sensible in my mind is that it
captures intent. It is quite different but it supports openwire, so it
is a drop in replacement. It is java code, xml config, has near
capability parity with the exception of a jdbc store. It is already
production quality code.
There is so much goodness there that the next 6 months can be spent on
incremental improvements to the migration strategy rather than on a
rewrite of 5.x.
I don't know who is suggesting that 5.x will die with or without 6.
5.x has quite a bit of in built inertia that will sustain it.
I do know that 5.x has some limitations and the same limitations do
not exist in the code grant source.
I think a lot of confusion comes from the website (next generation
...) and the lack of incremental communication on the progress of the
code grant.
I would love to have some consensus on direction.
On 26 March 2015 at 00:44, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure absolutely.
>
> I changed my mind a few times during this thread. The rationale for my
> revised recommendation is:
>
> 1. Many in the activemq community accept the notion that hornetq has
> technical merits, yet very few actually looked at the code. We are nothing
> more than a peanut gallery for the hornetq guys.
> 2. If I were one of the active committers in hornetq, I would jump at the
> opportunity to build the project and community without the activemq baggage.
> Independently (in the incubator) the project has the freedom to go whatever
> path they choose.
> 3. In the incubator they would benefit from far better mentoring than what
> they get in the ActiveMQ pmc.
>
> Yes, the hornetq commmitters did a lot of work (didn't get much help also).
> It would be frustrating and a bit unfair to them. Yes, their opinion does
> count.
>
> Renaming the subproject to something else than activemq6 was not accepted.
> This would have been imho a very simple solution until such time that a
> strong community exists. By that time, it might be activemq 7 or 8, who
> knows. The strong push from one side of the fence to keep it as activemq6,
> concerns me. It sounds like the hornetq proponents feel that the only way to
> be successful is to (what is perceived as) hijack of the activemq brand and
> future of the project. And the idea that the activemq project will die
> without the infusion of hornetq is, well, insulting. What facts support that
> statement? I, personally, react very strongly to such manipulative comments.
>
> Now that Chris is aware of this threads, I think enough points of view were
> expressed and I hope we'll soon hear a more authoritative opinion.
>
> Best,
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 03/25/2015 06:52 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
>>
>> Hadrian - so the original vote was to accept the code into ActiveMQ
>> specifically. We would have to check with the HornetQ developers to see if
>> now going to incubator instead was acceptable to them - but it does seem to
>> me that their desire to join ActiveMQ was borne out of consolidation of the
>> code bases - and it does appear it was accepted in that vein. The HornetQ
>> code base has been worked on to be ready to pass ASF release guidelines -
>> but actually trying to release it had caused a lot of concern within the
>> community, which is understandable.
>>
>> So instead of passing HornetQ to the incubator - wouldn't it be better to
>> start a discussion on how some/all/none of it could be incorporated into
>> ActiveMQ? I'm not sure this had happened yet.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2015, at 20:53, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and
>>> building the community in the incubator does not prevent anything you
>>> mentioned from happing, right?
>>>
>>> Apollo did it right actually. Some folks said that they had a better
>>> idea, called the project Apollo, not activemq-6 (although there were the
>>> same references to plans for apollo to become the core of the next
>>> generation of activemq). And the Apollo community went on to prove its
>>> viability. The fact that it didn't happen has many reasons, most of them not
>>> technical.
>>>
>>> As an ASF member I am interested in the viability and maturity of a
>>> project community. HornetQ is not yet there. And the fact fact that it's
>>> called activemq-6 effectively prevents the current mature activemq project
>>> to have a version 6 in any shape that is not HornetQ.
>>>
>>> I was kinda neutral initially and did not get involved in this thread
>>> initially. But the passion to keep the activemq6 name for hornetq, makes me
>>> very suspicious (coupled with past experiences) that I am getting very
>>> strongly in favour of hornetq being re-hosted in the incubator where there
>>> are many very experienced ASFer that could mentor and assist (more than in
>>> the ActiveMQ community). If HornetQ will not happen, the same way Apollo
>>> didn't, this will prove to be another distraction. Some are excited about
>>> the future, others are frustrated about the present.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 03/25/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
>>>> My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of
>>>> years
>>>> and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>>>> last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to
>>>> become
>>>> the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and
>>>> overall
>>>> our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>>>> generation of ActiveMQ.
>>>>
>>>> Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is
>>>> in
>>>> the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>>>> ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good
>>>> points
>>>> earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>>>> technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
>>>> that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>>>> doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base.
>>>> We
>>>> need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>>>> etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>>>>
>>>> I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>>>> supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>>>> OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>>>> instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>>>> there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data
>>>> store
>>>> type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>>>> include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly,
>>>> it
>>>> would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we
>>>> can
>>>> track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>>>> make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone
>>>> in
>>>> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>>>> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>>>> causing it to die out.
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink
>>>>> at
>>>>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>>>>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
>>>>> having
>>>>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>>>>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually
>>>>>> started
>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> If
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>>>>>> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>>>>>
>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>>>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>>>
>>>>>> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>>>>> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>>>>>
>>>>> activemq6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>>>>>> community has for their project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>>>>>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>>>>>> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this
>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making
>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave
>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>>>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument
>>>>>>>> (consider
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>>>>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>>>>
>>>>> industries,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>>>>
>>>>> strength
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>>>>
>>>>> technology;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>>>>
>>>>> presumption
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>>> merits described.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>>>>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>>>>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Sure absolutely.
I changed my mind a few times during this thread. The rationale for my
revised recommendation is:
1. Many in the activemq community accept the notion that hornetq has
technical merits, yet very few actually looked at the code. We are
nothing more than a peanut gallery for the hornetq guys.
2. If I were one of the active committers in hornetq, I would jump at
the opportunity to build the project and community without the activemq
baggage. Independently (in the incubator) the project has the freedom to
go whatever path they choose.
3. In the incubator they would benefit from far better mentoring than
what they get in the ActiveMQ pmc.
Yes, the hornetq commmitters did a lot of work (didn't get much help
also). It would be frustrating and a bit unfair to them. Yes, their
opinion does count.
Renaming the subproject to something else than activemq6 was not
accepted. This would have been imho a very simple solution until such
time that a strong community exists. By that time, it might be activemq
7 or 8, who knows. The strong push from one side of the fence to keep it
as activemq6, concerns me. It sounds like the hornetq proponents feel
that the only way to be successful is to (what is perceived as) hijack
of the activemq brand and future of the project. And the idea that the
activemq project will die without the infusion of hornetq is, well,
insulting. What facts support that statement? I, personally, react very
strongly to such manipulative comments.
Now that Chris is aware of this threads, I think enough points of view
were expressed and I hope we'll soon hear a more authoritative opinion.
Best,
Hadrian
On 03/25/2015 06:52 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
> Hadrian - so the original vote was to accept the code into ActiveMQ specifically. We would have to check with the HornetQ developers to see if now going to incubator instead was acceptable to them - but it does seem to me that their desire to join ActiveMQ was borne out of consolidation of the code bases - and it does appear it was accepted in that vein. The HornetQ code base has been worked on to be ready to pass ASF release guidelines - but actually trying to release it had caused a lot of concern within the community, which is understandable.
>
> So instead of passing HornetQ to the incubator - wouldn't it be better to start a discussion on how some/all/none of it could be incorporated into ActiveMQ? I'm not sure this had happened yet.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>> On 25 Mar 2015, at 20:53, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and building the community in the incubator does not prevent anything you mentioned from happing, right?
>>
>> Apollo did it right actually. Some folks said that they had a better idea, called the project Apollo, not activemq-6 (although there were the same references to plans for apollo to become the core of the next generation of activemq). And the Apollo community went on to prove its viability. The fact that it didn't happen has many reasons, most of them not technical.
>>
>> As an ASF member I am interested in the viability and maturity of a project community. HornetQ is not yet there. And the fact fact that it's called activemq-6 effectively prevents the current mature activemq project to have a version 6 in any shape that is not HornetQ.
>>
>> I was kinda neutral initially and did not get involved in this thread initially. But the passion to keep the activemq6 name for hornetq, makes me very suspicious (coupled with past experiences) that I am getting very strongly in favour of hornetq being re-hosted in the incubator where there are many very experienced ASFer that could mentor and assist (more than in the ActiveMQ community). If HornetQ will not happen, the same way Apollo didn't, this will prove to be another distraction. Some are excited about the future, others are frustrated about the present.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>> On 03/25/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
>>> My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
>>> and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>>> last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
>>> the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
>>> our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>>> generation of ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>> Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
>>> the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>>> ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
>>> earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>>> technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
>>> that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>>> doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
>>> need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>>> etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>>>
>>> I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>>> supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>>> OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>>> instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>>> there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
>>> type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>>> include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly, it
>>> would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
>>> track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>>>
>>> In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>>> make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
>>> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>>> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>>> causing it to die out.
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
>>>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>>>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
>>>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>>>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
>>>> in
>>>>> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution.
>>>> If
>>>>> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>>>>> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
>>>>> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>>>>
>>>>> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
>>>>> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>>>> for
>>>>> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>>>> can
>>>>> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>>>> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>>>> activemq6
>>>>> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>>>>> community has for their project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>>>>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>>>>> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty
>>>>>> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>>> really
>>>>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>>>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>>>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>>>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>>> industries,
>>>>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>>> strength
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>>> technology;
>>>>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>>> presumption
>>>>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>> merits described.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>>>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>>>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hadrian - so the original vote was to accept the code into ActiveMQ specifically. We would have to check with the HornetQ developers to see if now going to incubator instead was acceptable to them - but it does seem to me that their desire to join ActiveMQ was borne out of consolidation of the code bases - and it does appear it was accepted in that vein. The HornetQ code base has been worked on to be ready to pass ASF release guidelines - but actually trying to release it had caused a lot of concern within the community, which is understandable.
So instead of passing HornetQ to the incubator - wouldn't it be better to start a discussion on how some/all/none of it could be incorporated into ActiveMQ? I'm not sure this had happened yet.
Rob
> On 25 Mar 2015, at 20:53, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and building the community in the incubator does not prevent anything you mentioned from happing, right?
>
> Apollo did it right actually. Some folks said that they had a better idea, called the project Apollo, not activemq-6 (although there were the same references to plans for apollo to become the core of the next generation of activemq). And the Apollo community went on to prove its viability. The fact that it didn't happen has many reasons, most of them not technical.
>
> As an ASF member I am interested in the viability and maturity of a project community. HornetQ is not yet there. And the fact fact that it's called activemq-6 effectively prevents the current mature activemq project to have a version 6 in any shape that is not HornetQ.
>
> I was kinda neutral initially and did not get involved in this thread initially. But the passion to keep the activemq6 name for hornetq, makes me very suspicious (coupled with past experiences) that I am getting very strongly in favour of hornetq being re-hosted in the incubator where there are many very experienced ASFer that could mentor and assist (more than in the ActiveMQ community). If HornetQ will not happen, the same way Apollo didn't, this will prove to be another distraction. Some are excited about the future, others are frustrated about the present.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
>> On 03/25/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
>> My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
>> and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>> last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
>> the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
>> our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>> generation of ActiveMQ.
>>
>> Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
>> the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>> ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
>> earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>> technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
>> that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>> doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
>> need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>> etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>>
>> I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>> supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>> OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>> instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>> there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
>> type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>> include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly, it
>> would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
>> track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>>
>> In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>> make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
>> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>> causing it to die out.
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
>>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
>>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>>>
>>>> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
>>> in
>>>> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution.
>>> If
>>>> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>>>> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>>>
>>>> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
>>>> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>>>
>>>> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
>>>> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>>> for
>>>> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>>> can
>>>> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>>> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>>> activemq6
>>>> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>>>> community has for their project.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>>>>
>>>>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>>>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>>>> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty
>>>>> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>> the
>>>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>> really
>>>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>>>>>> mean
>>>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>> industries,
>>>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>> strength
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>> technology;
>>>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>> presumption
>>>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>>>> valid
>>>>>> merits described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and
building the community in the incubator does not prevent anything you
mentioned from happing, right?
Apollo did it right actually. Some folks said that they had a better
idea, called the project Apollo, not activemq-6 (although there were the
same references to plans for apollo to become the core of the next
generation of activemq). And the Apollo community went on to prove its
viability. The fact that it didn't happen has many reasons, most of them
not technical.
As an ASF member I am interested in the viability and maturity of a
project community. HornetQ is not yet there. And the fact fact that it's
called activemq-6 effectively prevents the current mature activemq
project to have a version 6 in any shape that is not HornetQ.
I was kinda neutral initially and did not get involved in this thread
initially. But the passion to keep the activemq6 name for hornetq, makes
me very suspicious (coupled with past experiences) that I am getting
very strongly in favour of hornetq being re-hosted in the incubator
where there are many very experienced ASFer that could mentor and assist
(more than in the ActiveMQ community). If HornetQ will not happen, the
same way Apollo didn't, this will prove to be another distraction. Some
are excited about the future, others are frustrated about the present.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/25/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
> and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
> last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
> the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
> our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
> generation of ActiveMQ.
>
> Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
> the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
> ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
> earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
> technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
> that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
> doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
> need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
> etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>
> I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
> supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
> OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
> instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
> there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
> type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
> include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly, it
> would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
> track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>
> In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
> make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
> causing it to die out.
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>>
>>> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
>> in
>>> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution.
>> If
>>> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>>> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>>
>>> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
>>> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>>
>>> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
>>> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>> for
>>> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>> can
>>> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>> activemq6
>>> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>>> community has for their project.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>>>
>>>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>>> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty
>>>> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>> the
>>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>> really
>>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>>>> that
>>>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to
>>>>> be
>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>>>>> mean
>>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>>> that
>>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>>>
>>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>> industries,
>>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>> strength
>>>>> of
>>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>> technology;
>>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>> presumption
>>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>>>> valid
>>>>> merits described.
>>>>>
>>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
> the community join together to support one broker going forward would
> produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
> causing it to die out.
I think everyone (mostly) agrees with that. So the next step is getting consensus with the community on what that one broker going forward looks like. Picking one then expecting the community to follow seems a bit backwards.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
My comment that the ActiveMQ community could "die out" is based on the fact
that naturally if the community is split then users will migrate towards
one product or the other. I could be wrong of course, but as an outsider
who's been following the discussions, it seems like there are several
current ActiveMQ developers who fully support the HornetQ direction and
would jump over to the incubation project if started and join with the
HornetQ developers. I would suspect that might mean the current ActiveMQ
product would lose steam if several current members jump over to the new
project.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks Christopher.
>
> Based on my reading below - it’s your take that if
> HornetQ went the Incubation route that the Apache ActiveMQ
> community would “die out”?
>
> Is that a correct reading? Is that the view shared
> by the PMC?
>
> I would expect btw, that the current PMC chair should
> include a report by the community on the goings-on during
> this discussion - as I think it’s quite important. If ActiveMQ
> doesn’t have a community around it and if HornetQ is where
> the community of message brokering tech peeps want to move
> to, the thing is, Apache doesn’t pick winners. There can be
> as many competing technology projects that do the same thing
> (how many web servers? how many implementations of JAX-RS?
> how many parsing technologies? etc etc.)
>
> From a branding and naming perspective though, I don’t think
> the ActiveMQ PMC has done its due diligence with respect to
> this HornetQ contribution. Was trademarks@ consulted related
> to this?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ------------------------
> Chris Mattmann
> chris.mattmann@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
> >My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of
> >years
> >and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
> >last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to
> >become
> >the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
> >our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
> >generation of ActiveMQ.
> >
> >Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
> >the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
> >ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
> >earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
> >technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
> >that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
> >doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
> >need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
> >etc) which is something HornetQ does.
> >
> >I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
> >supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
> >OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
> >instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
> >there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data
> >store
> >type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
> >include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly,
> >it
> >would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
> >track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
> >
> >In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
> >make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
> >the community join together to support one broker going forward would
> >produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
> >causing it to die out.
> >
> >On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink
> >>at
> >> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
> >> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
> >>having
> >> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
> >> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is not a view shared by everybody.
> >> >
> >> > The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually
> >>started
> >> in
> >> > the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
> >>solution.
> >> If
> >> > hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
> >> > community will jump boat. Who knows.
> >> >
> >> > But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well
> >>be
> >> > the solution you mention in the incubator right?
> >> >
> >> > After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq
> >>in
> >> > the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
> >> for
> >> > the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
> >> can
> >> > choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
> >> > features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
> >> activemq6
> >> > should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
> >> > community has for their project.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Hadrian
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry, can't stop typing.
> >> >>
> >> >> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
> >> >> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
> >> >> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this
> >>pretty
> >> >> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
> >> >>
> >> >> thanks
> >> >> david jencks
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
> >> the
> >> >>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
> >> really
> >> >>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ
> >>will
> >> >>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making
> >>sure
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very
> >>glad to
> >> >>> be
> >> >>> having this discussion.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave
> >>ActiveMQ
> >> >>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does
> >>it
> >> >>> mean
> >> >>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
> >> >>> ActiveMQ
> >> >>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument
> >>(consider
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
> >> >>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
> >> industries,
> >> >>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
> >> strength
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
> >> technology;
> >> >>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
> >> presumption
> >> >>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
> >> >>> valid
> >> >>> merits described.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
> >> >>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> >> >>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
> >> >>> tp4693781p4693805.html
> >> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Gary,
Thanks. I just meant to contact trademarks with respect to
branding - the name HornetQ whether removed or not has caused
confusion here since it seems to be a pre-existing project.
It’s great that the PMC or committers have looked into this
and done due diligence but at the end of the day checking
with trademarks@ is the right step since that’s what the
committee is here for - to vet these things. Again this is
a standard step in Incubation that needs to be covered.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 4:41 AM
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Chris,
>
>From a branding perspective. If you peek at the activemq6 repository
>or the release candidates for the first release of the code donation
>you will see that there is no reference to HornetQ. There has been
>trojan work to remove all such references to negate any trademark
>issues. Maybe there is something we are missing?
>
>On 26 March 2015 at 03:24, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Thanks Christopher.
>>
>> Based on my reading below - it’s your take that if
>> HornetQ went the Incubation route that the Apache ActiveMQ
>> community would “die out”?
>>
>> Is that a correct reading? Is that the view shared
>> by the PMC?
>>
>> I would expect btw, that the current PMC chair should
>> include a report by the community on the goings-on during
>> this discussion - as I think it’s quite important. If ActiveMQ
>> doesn’t have a community around it and if HornetQ is where
>> the community of message brokering tech peeps want to move
>> to, the thing is, Apache doesn’t pick winners. There can be
>> as many competing technology projects that do the same thing
>> (how many web servers? how many implementations of JAX-RS?
>> how many parsing technologies? etc etc.)
>>
>> From a branding and naming perspective though, I don’t think
>> the ActiveMQ PMC has done its due diligence with respect to
>> this HornetQ contribution. Was trademarks@ consulted related
>> to this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Chris Mattmann
>> chris.mattmann@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM
>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of
>>>years
>>>and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>>>last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to
>>>become
>>>the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and
>>>overall
>>>our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>>>generation of ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>>Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is
>>>in
>>>the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>>>ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good
>>>points
>>>earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>>>technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
>>>that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>>>doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base.
>>>We
>>>need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>>>etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>>>
>>>I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>>>supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>>>OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>>>instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>>>there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data
>>>store
>>>type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>>>include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly,
>>>it
>>>would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we
>>>can
>>>track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>>>
>>>In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>>>make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone
>>>in
>>>the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>>>produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>>>causing it to die out.
>>>
>>>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink
>>>>at
>>>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>>>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
>>>>having
>>>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>>>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>>> >
>>>> > The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually
>>>>started
>>>> in
>>>> > the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
>>>>solution.
>>>> If
>>>> > hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the
>>>>activemq
>>>> > community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>>> >
>>>> > But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well
>>>>be
>>>> > the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>>> >
>>>> > After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq
>>>>in
>>>> > the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial
>>>>for
>>>> for
>>>> > the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction.
>>>>They
>>>> can
>>>> > choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>>> > features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>>>> activemq6
>>>> > should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the
>>>>hornetq
>>>> > community has for their project.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> > Hadrian
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that
>>>>anyone
>>>> >> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than
>>>>political
>>>> >> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this
>>>>pretty
>>>> >> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> thanks
>>>> >> david jencks
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless
>>>>of
>>>> the
>>>> >>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>>> really
>>>> >>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ
>>>>will
>>>> >>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making
>>>>sure
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very
>>>>glad to
>>>> >>> be
>>>> >>> having this discussion.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave
>>>>ActiveMQ
>>>> >>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor
>>>>does
>>>>it
>>>> >>> mean
>>>> >>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>>> >>> ActiveMQ
>>>> >>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument
>>>>(consider
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It
>>>>serves
>>>> >>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>>> industries,
>>>> >>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many
>>>>places.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>>> strength
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>>> technology;
>>>> >>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>>> presumption
>>>> >>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing
>>>>any
>>>> >>> valid
>>>> >>> merits described.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me
>>>>to
>>>> >>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> >>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>>> >>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
>From a branding perspective. If you peek at the activemq6 repository
or the release candidates for the first release of the code donation
you will see that there is no reference to HornetQ. There has been
trojan work to remove all such references to negate any trademark
issues. Maybe there is something we are missing?
On 26 March 2015 at 03:24, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Christopher.
>
> Based on my reading below - it’s your take that if
> HornetQ went the Incubation route that the Apache ActiveMQ
> community would “die out”?
>
> Is that a correct reading? Is that the view shared
> by the PMC?
>
> I would expect btw, that the current PMC chair should
> include a report by the community on the goings-on during
> this discussion - as I think it’s quite important. If ActiveMQ
> doesn’t have a community around it and if HornetQ is where
> the community of message brokering tech peeps want to move
> to, the thing is, Apache doesn’t pick winners. There can be
> as many competing technology projects that do the same thing
> (how many web servers? how many implementations of JAX-RS?
> how many parsing technologies? etc etc.)
>
> From a branding and naming perspective though, I don’t think
> the ActiveMQ PMC has done its due diligence with respect to
> this HornetQ contribution. Was trademarks@ consulted related
> to this?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ------------------------
> Chris Mattmann
> chris.mattmann@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of
>>years
>>and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>>last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to
>>become
>>the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
>>our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>>generation of ActiveMQ.
>>
>>Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
>>the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>>ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
>>earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>>technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
>>that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>>doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
>>need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>>etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>>
>>I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>>supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>>OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>>instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>>there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data
>>store
>>type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>>include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly,
>>it
>>would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
>>track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>>
>>In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>>make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
>>the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>>produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>>causing it to die out.
>>
>>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink
>>>at
>>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
>>>having
>>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > This is not a view shared by everybody.
>>> >
>>> > The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually
>>>started
>>> in
>>> > the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
>>>solution.
>>> If
>>> > hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>>> > community will jump boat. Who knows.
>>> >
>>> > But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well
>>>be
>>> > the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>>> >
>>> > After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq
>>>in
>>> > the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>>> for
>>> > the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>>> can
>>> > choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>>> > features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>>> activemq6
>>> > should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>>> > community has for their project.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Hadrian
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>> >>
>>> >> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>>> >> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>>> >> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this
>>>pretty
>>> >> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks
>>> >> david jencks
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>> the
>>> >>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>> really
>>> >>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ
>>>will
>>> >>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making
>>>sure
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very
>>>glad to
>>> >>> be
>>> >>> having this discussion.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave
>>>ActiveMQ
>>> >>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does
>>>it
>>> >>> mean
>>> >>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>> >>> ActiveMQ
>>> >>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument
>>>(consider
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>> >>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>> industries,
>>> >>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>> strength
>>> >>> of
>>> >>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>> technology;
>>> >>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>>> presumption
>>> >>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>> >>> valid
>>> >>> merits described.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>> >>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> >>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>> >>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Thanks Christopher.
Based on my reading below - it’s your take that if
HornetQ went the Incubation route that the Apache ActiveMQ
community would “die out”?
Is that a correct reading? Is that the view shared
by the PMC?
I would expect btw, that the current PMC chair should
include a report by the community on the goings-on during
this discussion - as I think it’s quite important. If ActiveMQ
doesn’t have a community around it and if HornetQ is where
the community of message brokering tech peeps want to move
to, the thing is, Apache doesn’t pick winners. There can be
as many competing technology projects that do the same thing
(how many web servers? how many implementations of JAX-RS?
how many parsing technologies? etc etc.)
>From a branding and naming perspective though, I don’t think
the ActiveMQ PMC has done its due diligence with respect to
this HornetQ contribution. Was trademarks@ consulted related
to this?
Cheers,
Chris
------------------------
Chris Mattmann
chris.mattmann@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of
>years
>and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
>last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to
>become
>the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
>our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
>generation of ActiveMQ.
>
>Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
>the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
>ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
>earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
>technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
>that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
>doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
>need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
>etc) which is something HornetQ does.
>
>I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
>supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
>OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
>instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
>there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data
>store
>type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
>include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly,
>it
>would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
>track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
>
>In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
>make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
>the community join together to support one broker going forward would
>produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
>causing it to die out.
>
>On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink
>>at
>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by
>>having
>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
>> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is not a view shared by everybody.
>> >
>> > The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually
>>started
>> in
>> > the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
>>solution.
>> If
>> > hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
>> > community will jump boat. Who knows.
>> >
>> > But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well
>>be
>> > the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>> >
>> > After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq
>>in
>> > the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
>> for
>> > the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
>> can
>> > choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
>> > features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
>> activemq6
>> > should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
>> > community has for their project.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Hadrian
>> >
>> >
>> > On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>> >>
>> >> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>> >> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>> >> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this
>>pretty
>> >> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>> the
>> >>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>> really
>> >>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ
>>will
>> >>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>> >>>
>> >>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making
>>sure
>> >>> that
>> >>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very
>>glad to
>> >>> be
>> >>> having this discussion.
>> >>>
>> >>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave
>>ActiveMQ
>> >>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does
>>it
>> >>> mean
>> >>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>> >>>
>> >>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>> >>> ActiveMQ
>> >>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument
>>(consider
>> >>> that
>> >>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>> >>>
>> >>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>> >>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>> industries,
>> >>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>> >>>
>> >>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>> strength
>> >>> of
>> >>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>> technology;
>> >>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
>> presumption
>> >>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>> >>>
>> >>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>> >>> valid
>> >>> merits described.
>> >>>
>> >>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>> >>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>> >>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>> >>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
My team has been using ActiveMQ pretty heavily for the past couple of years
and we have been following the ActiveMQ 6 discussion from the beginning
last summer. It was always our impression that HornetQ was going to become
the core of the next broker (just like Apollo originally was) and overall
our team is excited about the idea of going with HornetQ as the next
generation of ActiveMQ.
Mostly, our reasons are from the technical side of things. My team is in
the source code every day making modifications for our own needs and
ActiveMQ certainly is showing its age. Hiram has already made good points
earlier as to why HornetQ would provide a better foundation from a
technical standpoint going forward. Another really big thing for us is
that our team has been waiting for JMS 2.0 support for a while and it
doesn't seem like anyone wants to support it in the current code base. We
need to be able to support a variety of protocols (STOMP, JMS 1/2, AMQP,
etc) which is something HornetQ does.
I think that calling it ActiveMQ 6 is the way to go as long as it still
supports all of the features in ActiveMQ 5.x (Virtual Destinations,
OpenWire, etc) before going final and there are clear migration
instructions. We would need to have ActiveMQ 6 either support KahaDB or
there would need to be a way to migrate existing data to the new data store
type. We would also need to be able to have a network of brokers that
include both an ActiveMQ 5.x broker and an ActiveMQ 6.x broker. Lastly, it
would also be nice to have a roadmap posted and kept up to date so we can
track the progress of the code and test out milestone releases.
In my opinion having another sub project (along with Apollo) would just
make things even more confusing. As Andy pointed out, having everyone in
the community join together to support one broker going forward would
produce a better broker than by splitting up resources and potentially
causing it to die out.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
> On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is not a view shared by everybody.
> >
> > The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
> in
> > the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution.
> If
> > hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
> > community will jump boat. Who knows.
> >
> > But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
> > the solution you mention in the incubator right?
> >
> > After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
> > the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
> for
> > the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They
> can
> > choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
> > features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what
> activemq6
> > should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
> > community has for their project.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, can't stop typing.
> >>
> >> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
> >> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
> >> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty
> >> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
> the
> >>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
> really
> >>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
> >>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
> >>>
> >>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
> >>> that
> >>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to
> >>> be
> >>> having this discussion.
> >>>
> >>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
> >>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
> >>> mean
> >>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
> >>>
> >>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
> >>>
> >>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
> >>> ActiveMQ
> >>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
> >>> that
> >>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
> >>>
> >>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
> >>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
> industries,
> >>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
> >>>
> >>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
> strength
> >>> of
> >>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
> technology;
> >>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a
> presumption
> >>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
> >>>
> >>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
> >>> valid
> >>> merits described.
> >>>
> >>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
> >>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> >>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
> >>> tp4693781p4693805.html
> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at
some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its
community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having
a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not a view shared by everybody.
>
> The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started in
> the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution. If
> hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq
> community will jump boat. Who knows.
>
> But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
> the solution you mention in the incubator right?
>
> After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
> the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for for
> the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction. They can
> choose to be as close or distant they want from the current activemq
> features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards what activemq6
> should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision the hornetq
> community has for their project.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>>
>> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone
>> picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political
>> factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty
>> explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>> that
>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to
>>> be
>>> having this discussion.
>>>
>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it
>>> mean
>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>
>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>
>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>> that
>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>
>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength
>>> of
>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>
>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>> valid
>>> merits described.
>>>
>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-
>>> tp4693781p4693805.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
This is not a view shared by everybody.
The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started
in the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging
solution. If hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from
the activemq community will jump boat. Who knows.
But why undercut the current activemq project? HornetQ can very well be
the solution you mention in the incubator right?
After all this long discussion, my recommendation is to move hornetq in
the incubator and let it evolve over there. It would be beneficial for
for the hornetq project too to grow without the activemq distraction.
They can choose to be as close or distant they want from the current
activemq features. The activemq community is obviously biased towards
what activemq6 should offer and that may or may not jive with the vision
the hornetq community has for their project.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/25/2015 01:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Sorry, can't stop typing.
>
> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that
>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
>> having this discussion.
>>
>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it mean
>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>
>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>
>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the ActiveMQ
>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that
>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>
>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>
>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of
>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>
>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
>> merits described.
>>
>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693805.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:56 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
Yes. He never even implied such a drastic statement. ActiveMQ may need updating but it’s far from devoid of technical merit. To imply otherwise is rather insulting.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Sorry, can't stop typing.
My impression is the problem hornetQ is a solution for is that anyone picking a messaging solution based on technical rather than political factors is not going to pick activemq. I thought Hiram said this pretty explicitly. Did I misunderstand?
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:05 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>
> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that
> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
> having this discussion.
>
> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it mean
> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>
> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>
> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the ActiveMQ
> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that
> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>
> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>
> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of
> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>
> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
> merits described.
>
> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693805.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the
naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really
change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure that
direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be
having this discussion.
The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it mean
that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
So, let's put this back into perspective.
We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the ActiveMQ
community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider that
Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves
mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries,
and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength of
technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology;
ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption
that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid
merits described.
I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to
understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693805.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Thank you Gary, am reading through the threads now.
This certainly helps.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:51 PM
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Chris,
>donation vote -
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+v
>QmMMv5EGA-ZA3mABH3oNfx-fA5PV+dri-oXA_+Tc_kuWmg@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>the start of ip clearance -
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKF+
>bsovr7Hvn-rMYkb3pF6hoGjx7nuJWzT_Nh8MyC4usRBX9A@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>A successful release vote, will completed the process by validating a
>release. The source has already been verified by a number of pmc
>members who have voted +1. Before we announce we can complete the
>ip-clearance document.
>
>
>On 25 March 2015 at 17:00, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Can someone please point me to the below verification
>> and code donation threads for review?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 6:49 AM
>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified
>>>all
>>>of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the
>>>activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by
>>>additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no
>>>longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6
>>>code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a
>>>container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto
>>>destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc.
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
donation vote -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAH+vQmMMv5EGA-ZA3mABH3oNfx-fA5PV+dri-oXA_+Tc_kuWmg@mail.gmail.com%3E
the start of ip clearance -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKF+bsovr7Hvn-rMYkb3pF6hoGjx7nuJWzT_Nh8MyC4usRBX9A@mail.gmail.com%3E
A successful release vote, will completed the process by validating a
release. The source has already been verified by a number of pmc
members who have voted +1. Before we announce we can complete the
ip-clearance document.
On 25 March 2015 at 17:00, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Can someone please point me to the below verification
> and code donation threads for review?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 6:49 AM
> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all
>>of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the
>>activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by
>>additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no
>>longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6
>>code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a
>>container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto
>>destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Can someone please point me to the below verification
and code donation threads for review?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 6:49 AM
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all
>of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the
>activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by
>additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no
>longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6
>code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a
>container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto
>destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Both Rob and Hadrian seem to agree that a key stumbling block is the "need
to grow a diverse community first". Then it could be called ActiveMQ 6. I
don't buy that.
There are two bits, diverse and community.
The qualifier diverse is a problem with the ActiveMQ community today. It
has been a long standing issue and it is related to the nature of the
problem space and to industry consolidation. A code donation cannot be
expected to rectify that on its own. The only way to rectify this issue is
growth.
On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all
of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the activemq
community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by additional
committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no longer exists,
there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6 code base at Apache
prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a container from apollo,
authentication/authorisation support and auto destination creation from 5.x
and bug fixes etc.
This is happening *in* the ActiveMQ community.
Rallying around activemq 6 milestones is an opportunity to grow the
community and reach a new audience.
Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ rudderless.
Gary.
On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There
> were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was
> some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
> sub-project with its own name.
> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
> Rob
>
> Lionel Cons <li...@cern.ch>
> 25 March 2015 06:58
> (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more
> than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>
> Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in
> 2010
> as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that
> time,
> the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>
> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo
> developments
> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
> still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>
> In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
> The
> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
> "ActiveMQ's
> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>
> For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
> HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>
> If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should
> get
> a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
> later
> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>
> If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
> ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
> and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
> project
> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lionel Cons
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Completely agree, thanks Rob. The proposal is use a name for the hornetq
subproject that avoids confusion and doesn't use a version number.
Hornetq *may* become the next activemq 6 (or 7, or whatever the case)
once it builds a strong, self sustained community.
Like in the Apollo case, the technology merit is not in question. One of
the ASF core beliefs is that the key ingredient for a mature [1] open
source project is the community.
I hope too that the hornetq community achieves its goals,
Hadrian
[1]
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
On 03/25/2015 04:47 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
> (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
> community.
> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
> sub-project with its own name.
> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
> Rob
>> Lionel Cons <ma...@cern.ch>
>> 25 March 2015 06:58
>> (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves
>> more
>> than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>
>> Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started
>> in 2010
>> as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that
>> time,
>> the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>
>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo
>> developments
>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>> still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>
>> In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to
>> ActiveMQ. The
>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>> "ActiveMQ's
>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>
>> For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>> HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>
>> If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we
>> should get
>> a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor
>> versions later
>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>
>> If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>> ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve
>> there
>> and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>> project
>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lionel Cons
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Inline.
Hadrian
On 04/01/2015 06:47 AM, oliverd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the
> importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud,
> IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create
> a lot of momentum.
Strong +1. I think there is absolute consensus in the activemq community
regarding the need for a scalable broker. The network of brokers is a
cool feature that takes one down that path, but only so far... for now.
>
> Personally, I don't get the point why having HornetQ as a subproject like
> ActiveMQ Apollo is a problem - as I understand this was the original intent.
> Did anyone bring up this point when Apollo was introduced?
This is a subtle aspect, but important within the community. Yes it was
discussed, many times.
>
> I'm focused on the value for the users and would love to see HornetQ,
> ActiveMQ emerge as one broker that can really compete going forward. Joining
> forces makes a lot of sense to me. If projects get separated then
> compatibility, migration topics might get less important.
I believe there is consensus on this either. The question is how. That's
where we are trying to find the right path. Delivery is sometimes painful.
>
> Best Regards,
> Oliver
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694192.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by oliverd <ol...@hotmail.com>.
Hi,
as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the
importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud,
IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create
a lot of momentum.
Personally, I don't get the point why having HornetQ as a subproject like
ActiveMQ Apollo is a problem - as I understand this was the original intent.
Did anyone bring up this point when Apollo was introduced?
I'm focused on the value for the users and would love to see HornetQ,
ActiveMQ emerge as one broker that can really compete going forward. Joining
forces makes a lot of sense to me. If projects get separated then
compatibility, migration topics might get less important.
Best Regards,
Oliver
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694192.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
I am 100% behind the idea of building activemq 6 around the hornetq
donation. There is no other viable option.
If we start another sub project there will still be confusion about the
future. It is time to make a decision about direction and rally around it.
Is anyone else in the community working on activemq 6?
On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There
> were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was
> some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community.
> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
> sub-project with its own name.
> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
> Rob
>
> Lionel Cons <li...@cern.ch>
> 25 March 2015 06:58
> (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more
> than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>
> Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in
> 2010
> as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that
> time,
> the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>
> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo
> developments
> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
> still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>
> In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
> The
> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
> "ActiveMQ's
> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>
> For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
> HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>
> If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should
> get
> a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
> later
> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>
> If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
> ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
> and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
> project
> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lionel Cons
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi guys,
even if I'm not ActiveMQ PMC, let me express my thoughts:
1/ in order to avoid to disturb the users, I would prefer to avoid to
have ActiveMQ 7 or whatever for HornetQ. IMHO, the branding provides
information to the user, and people may be "lost" if we "rename" HornetQ
as ActiveMQ x.
2/ even if it's not encouraged, it's possible to have subprojects in an
Apache project. For instance, it's the case in ServiceMix (with bundles,
and in the past with nmr, etc), and in Karaf (cellar, cave, decanter).
So I don't see problem to have Apache ActiveMQ Hornet and Apache
ActiveMQ (and Apache ActiveMQ Appollo which would make sense).
3/ the HornetQ donation requires all the license granting and donation
rule: just to be sure that all HornetQ contributors/committers are
really aware of the Apache donation.
Just my $0.02
Regards
JB
On 03/25/2015 03:58 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Thanks Hadrian that helps to clarify things.
>
> Large code donations to the ASF need to start with an
> IP clearance short form especially if my read is right
> below and this large code donation was not entirely authored
> by the ActiveMQ PMC and those with ICLAs on file. Has this
> been done? FYI:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
>
> (note this links to the Incubator and yes I know that
> this wasn’t done through the Incubator but the form is
> still valid)
>
> Furthermore, have their been discussions about those
> members of the community that were not represented on the
> ActiveMQ PMC? The PMC is the one that releases Apache code,
> and so I’m wondering why the Apache ActiveMQ PMC brought in
> a large code contribution consisting of authorship by people
> that weren’t on the Apache ActiveMQ PMC - not fully out of
> precedent but I would have expected to see an influx of those
> members of HornetQ community on the ActiveMQ PMC if the
> code base is changing direction and the community surrounding
> it is as well. Also if HornetQ is a Redhat product or originally
> was a Redhat product, we need paperwork on file such as a Software
> Grant Agreement (SGA) that helps to cleanly bring large code
> elements into the community:
>
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
>
> Note the above advice are typically things that would have
> happened had this contribution come through the Incubator.
>
> Finally - Apache doesn’t really do “sub projects” anymore.
> It’s been a long time. The clarification on that is that a project
> can have multiple “products” (aka Lucene which releases Solr,
> Lucene, PyLucene, etc.) but these cannot be distinct projects
> and communities. If they are, they need to be made as such
> by an act of the Board (direct to TLP; spinning out), and/or
> by going through the Incubator.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:45 AM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> There was a code donation that completed last year. It started on
>> 07/08/2014 (in a thread named: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ)
>> and completed in Oct.
>>
>> HornetQ was a long time project and community of RedHat. The idea, the
>> way I understood it at the time, was to take relevant parts better
>> implemented in HornetQ and rewrite parts of ActiveMQ that were showing
>> their age (Hiram pointed out a few in the other thread yesterday).
>>
>> The HornetQ community opted to have the ActiveMQ pmc instead of the
>> incubator as the sponsoring entity. There are many RH people on the
>> ActiveMQ pmc, the technology space is the same (messaging), it probably
>> was considered a better fit and and easier way to build a community.
>>
>> The HornetQ subproject opted to use the ActiveMQ6 name as the name of
>> the project. However, the subproject is kept independent and there are
>> efforts being made to align some of the features with the current
>> ActiveMQ (ver 5.x). I believe the expectation is that users will migrate
>> to hornetq eventually, based on superior technical merits. That is a
>> migration, not an upgrade, with minimal chances of going back. The
>> ActiveMQ6 name is probably intended to help with that and create the
>> perception that it is the same project.
>>
>> Only a very small part of the current ActiveMQ community is actively
>> involved in HornetQ. There are concerns expressed by a few PMC and ASF
>> members that the activemq6 name creates an confusion. Hornetq is not yet
>> a stable community.
>>
>> The proposal is to change the name for the HornetQ to something that
>> reflects the current status, and not activemq6. It it relevant to note,
>> that with hornetq being named activemq6, the current activemq project
>> has no possibility of having a major version upgrade. It was also noted
>> by community members (non-committers) as well (see Lionel Cons' email)
>> that there is a precedent that didn't succeed as anticipated to name
>> another ActiveMQ subproject (apollo) as activemq 6. The name is now
>> reused for HornetQ.
>>
>> One analogy would be Microsoft for instance donating IIS to the ASF as a
>> httpd subproject and name it httpd3, because the current httpd is old
>> and has no future.
>>
>> Chris, your thoughts on the issue are highly appreciated. This does not
>> provide the complete picture, but it's hopefully clear enough.
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/25/2015 10:07 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
>>> Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
>>> I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
>>>
>>> Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
>>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (was: HornetQ &
>>>> ActiveMQ's next generation)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>>>>
>>>> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>>>> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>>>> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> community.
>>>> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members
>>>> of
>>>> the community.
>>>>
>>>> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>>>> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>>>> sub-project with its own name.
>>>> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>>>> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>>>> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its
>>>> own
>>>> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>>>> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lionel Cons <ma...@cern.ch>
>>>>
>>>> 25 March 2015
>>>> 06:58
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (for the sake of clarity, I
>>>> think that this important subject deserves more
>>>> than the [VOTE]
>>>> thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>>>
>>>> Apollo (tagline =
>>>> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>>>> as an
>>>> ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>>>> the
>>>> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>>>
>>>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>>>> 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>>>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>>>> been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>>>> still officially
>>>> advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>>>
>>>> In
>>>> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
>>>> The
>>>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>>>> "ActiveMQ's
>>>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>>>
>>>> For
>>>> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>>>> HornetQ
>>>> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>>>
>>>> If the
>>>> answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>>>> a
>>>> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>>>> later
>>>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>>>
>>>> If the answer is no
>>>> (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>>>> and
>>>> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>>>> project
>>>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Lionel
>>>> Cons
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Thanks Hadrian that helps to clarify things.
Large code donations to the ASF need to start with an
IP clearance short form especially if my read is right
below and this large code donation was not entirely authored
by the ActiveMQ PMC and those with ICLAs on file. Has this
been done? FYI:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
(note this links to the Incubator and yes I know that
this wasn’t done through the Incubator but the form is
still valid)
Furthermore, have their been discussions about those
members of the community that were not represented on the
ActiveMQ PMC? The PMC is the one that releases Apache code,
and so I’m wondering why the Apache ActiveMQ PMC brought in
a large code contribution consisting of authorship by people
that weren’t on the Apache ActiveMQ PMC - not fully out of
precedent but I would have expected to see an influx of those
members of HornetQ community on the ActiveMQ PMC if the
code base is changing direction and the community surrounding
it is as well. Also if HornetQ is a Redhat product or originally
was a Redhat product, we need paperwork on file such as a Software
Grant Agreement (SGA) that helps to cleanly bring large code
elements into the community:
https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
Note the above advice are typically things that would have
happened had this contribution come through the Incubator.
Finally - Apache doesn’t really do “sub projects” anymore.
It’s been a long time. The clarification on that is that a project
can have multiple “products” (aka Lucene which releases Solr,
Lucene, PyLucene, etc.) but these cannot be distinct projects
and communities. If they are, they need to be made as such
by an act of the Board (direct to TLP; spinning out), and/or
by going through the Incubator.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:45 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>Hi Chris,
>
>There was a code donation that completed last year. It started on
>07/08/2014 (in a thread named: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ)
>and completed in Oct.
>
>HornetQ was a long time project and community of RedHat. The idea, the
>way I understood it at the time, was to take relevant parts better
>implemented in HornetQ and rewrite parts of ActiveMQ that were showing
>their age (Hiram pointed out a few in the other thread yesterday).
>
>The HornetQ community opted to have the ActiveMQ pmc instead of the
>incubator as the sponsoring entity. There are many RH people on the
>ActiveMQ pmc, the technology space is the same (messaging), it probably
>was considered a better fit and and easier way to build a community.
>
>The HornetQ subproject opted to use the ActiveMQ6 name as the name of
>the project. However, the subproject is kept independent and there are
>efforts being made to align some of the features with the current
>ActiveMQ (ver 5.x). I believe the expectation is that users will migrate
>to hornetq eventually, based on superior technical merits. That is a
>migration, not an upgrade, with minimal chances of going back. The
>ActiveMQ6 name is probably intended to help with that and create the
>perception that it is the same project.
>
>Only a very small part of the current ActiveMQ community is actively
>involved in HornetQ. There are concerns expressed by a few PMC and ASF
>members that the activemq6 name creates an confusion. Hornetq is not yet
>a stable community.
>
>The proposal is to change the name for the HornetQ to something that
>reflects the current status, and not activemq6. It it relevant to note,
>that with hornetq being named activemq6, the current activemq project
>has no possibility of having a major version upgrade. It was also noted
>by community members (non-committers) as well (see Lionel Cons' email)
>that there is a precedent that didn't succeed as anticipated to name
>another ActiveMQ subproject (apollo) as activemq 6. The name is now
>reused for HornetQ.
>
>One analogy would be Microsoft for instance donating IIS to the ASF as a
>httpd subproject and name it httpd3, because the current httpd is old
>and has no future.
>
>Chris, your thoughts on the issue are highly appreciated. This does not
>provide the complete picture, but it's hopefully clear enough.
>Hadrian
>
>
>
>On 03/25/2015 10:07 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
>> Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
>> I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
>>
>> Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>>
>> ActiveMQ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
>> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>
>>> (was: HornetQ &
>>> ActiveMQ's next generation)
>>>
>>> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>>>
>>> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>>> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>>> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the
>>>ActiveMQ
>>> community.
>>> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members
>>>of
>>> the community.
>>>
>>> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>>> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>>> sub-project with its own name.
>>> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>>> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>>> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its
>>>own
>>> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>>> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lionel Cons <ma...@cern.ch>
>>>
>>> 25 March 2015
>>> 06:58
>>>
>>>
>>> (for the sake of clarity, I
>>> think that this important subject deserves more
>>> than the [VOTE]
>>> thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>>
>>> Apollo (tagline =
>>> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>>> as an
>>> ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>>> the
>>> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>>
>>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>>> 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>>> been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>>> still officially
>>> advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>>
>>> In
>>> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
>>> The
>>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>>> "ActiveMQ's
>>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>>
>>> For
>>> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>>> HornetQ
>>> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>>
>>> If the
>>> answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>>> a
>>> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>>> later
>>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>>
>>> If the answer is no
>>> (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>>> and
>>> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>>> project
>>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Lionel
>>> Cons
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Hi Chris,
There was a code donation that completed last year. It started on
07/08/2014 (in a thread named: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ)
and completed in Oct.
HornetQ was a long time project and community of RedHat. The idea, the
way I understood it at the time, was to take relevant parts better
implemented in HornetQ and rewrite parts of ActiveMQ that were showing
their age (Hiram pointed out a few in the other thread yesterday).
The HornetQ community opted to have the ActiveMQ pmc instead of the
incubator as the sponsoring entity. There are many RH people on the
ActiveMQ pmc, the technology space is the same (messaging), it probably
was considered a better fit and and easier way to build a community.
The HornetQ subproject opted to use the ActiveMQ6 name as the name of
the project. However, the subproject is kept independent and there are
efforts being made to align some of the features with the current
ActiveMQ (ver 5.x). I believe the expectation is that users will migrate
to hornetq eventually, based on superior technical merits. That is a
migration, not an upgrade, with minimal chances of going back. The
ActiveMQ6 name is probably intended to help with that and create the
perception that it is the same project.
Only a very small part of the current ActiveMQ community is actively
involved in HornetQ. There are concerns expressed by a few PMC and ASF
members that the activemq6 name creates an confusion. Hornetq is not yet
a stable community.
The proposal is to change the name for the HornetQ to something that
reflects the current status, and not activemq6. It it relevant to note,
that with hornetq being named activemq6, the current activemq project
has no possibility of having a major version upgrade. It was also noted
by community members (non-committers) as well (see Lionel Cons' email)
that there is a precedent that didn't succeed as anticipated to name
another ActiveMQ subproject (apollo) as activemq 6. The name is now
reused for HornetQ.
One analogy would be Microsoft for instance donating IIS to the ASF as a
httpd subproject and name it httpd3, because the current httpd is old
and has no future.
Chris, your thoughts on the issue are highly appreciated. This does not
provide the complete picture, but it's hopefully clear enough.
Hadrian
On 03/25/2015 10:07 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
> I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
>
> Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>
> ActiveMQ?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>>
>> (was: HornetQ &
>> ActiveMQ's next generation)
>>
>> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>>
>> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
>> community.
>> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
>> the community.
>>
>> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>> should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>> sub-project with its own name.
>> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
>> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>> involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> Lionel Cons <ma...@cern.ch>
>>
>> 25 March 2015
>> 06:58
>>
>>
>> (for the sake of clarity, I
>> think that this important subject deserves more
>> than the [VOTE]
>> thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>>
>> Apollo (tagline =
>> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>> as an
>> ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>> the
>> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>>
>> Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>> 5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>> (like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>> been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>> still officially
>> advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>> http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>>
>> In
>> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
>> The
>> ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
>> "ActiveMQ's
>> next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>>
>> For
>> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>> HornetQ
>> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>>
>> If the
>> answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>> a
>> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>> later
>> (who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>>
>> If the answer is no
>> (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>> ActiveMQ
>> sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>> and
>> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>> project
>> should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lionel
>> Cons
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the explanation, Rob. Got it.
I have replied else-thread on this.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:42 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>hi Chris,
>
>The HornetQ code has been donated to the ActiveMQ project, and that code
> is going through its first release under the ASF. The vote [1] -
>sparked some debate - which was is why this thread started - my fault I
>should have been clearer.
>
>[1]
>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-td4692911
>.html
>
>
>
>
> Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>
> 25 March 2015
>14:07
>
>
> Can someone please explain
> what is being discussed?
>I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties
>here.
>
>Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>
>ActiveMQ?
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>-----Original
> Message-----
>From: Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>
>Reply-To:
> <de...@activemq.apache.org> <ma...@activemq.apache.org>
>Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at
>1:47 AM
>To: <de...@activemq.apache.org> <ma...@activemq.apache.org>
>Subject: [DISCUSS}
>HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Davies <ma...@gmail.com>
>
> 25 March 2015
>08:47
>
>
>
>(was: HornetQ &
>ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
>Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
>The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
> community.
>On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
>It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>sub-project with its own name.
>Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
>Rob
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
hi Chris,
The HornetQ code has been donated to the ActiveMQ project, and that code
is going through its first release under the ASF. The vote [1] - sparked
some debate - which was is why this thread started - my fault I should
have been clearer.
[1]
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-td4692911.html
> Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> 25 March 2015 14:07
> Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
> I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
>
> Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
>
> ActiveMQ?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
> To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>
>
> Rob Davies <ma...@gmail.com>
> 25 March 2015 08:47
> (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
> Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
> The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
> There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
> there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the
> ActiveMQ community.
> On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members
> of the community.
>
> It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that
> HornetQ should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence
> should be a sub-project with its own name.
> Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
> development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
> already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its
> own diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole
> gets involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right
> way.
>
> Rob
Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Can someone please explain what is being discussed?
I’m sorry I don’t follow the subtleties here.
Is there a code donation being proposed to Apache
ActiveMQ?
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM
To: <de...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>
>(was: HornetQ &
>ActiveMQ's next generation)
>
>Thanks Lionel - I agree.
>
>The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated.
>There were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely
>there was some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ
> community.
>On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of
> the community.
>
>It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ
>should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a
>sub-project with its own name.
>Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting
>development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as
>already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own
> diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets
>involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way.
>
>Rob
>
>
>
> Lionel Cons <ma...@cern.ch>
>
> 25 March 2015
>06:58
>
>
> (for the sake of clarity, I
> think that this important subject deserves more
> than the [VOTE]
>thread currently used, hence this new thread...)
>
>Apollo (tagline =
> "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in 2010
>as an
>ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that time,
>the
> latest ActiveMQ was 5.4.
>
>Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now
>5.11 and some of the Apollo developments
>(like LevelDB or MQTT) have
>been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is
>still officially
>advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in
>http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html.
>
>In
> parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ.
> The
>ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline,
> "ActiveMQ's
>next generation of messaging", hence the confusion.
>
>For
> me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that
>HornetQ
> will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ?
>
>If the
>answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should get
>a
> stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions
>later
>(who trusts a .0 version anyway?).
>
>If the answer is no
>(or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an
>ActiveMQ
>sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there
>and
> come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ
>project
>should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Lionel
> Cons
>
>
>
>