You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by "domson.tech@outlook.com" <do...@outlook.com> on 2021/12/19 01:48:27 UTC
The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
To complete Justin’s answer, you can also listen the feather cast about ActiveMQ:
https://feathercast.apache.org/2021/09/07/apache-activemq/
Regards
JB
> Le 19 déc. 2021 à 06:52, Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation broker
> from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking architecture
> for improved scalability and performance, an architecture designed to
> enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume, low-latency
> asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I understand it, is for
> Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. That said, ActiveMQ
> "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's been the de facto
> open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine that it will be
> summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users out there who can't or
> won't upgrade for all kinds of different reasons, and there are developers
> in the community who are committed to supporting "Classic."
>
> As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same features
> which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those features for a
> smooth transition. Of course there are differences between the feature sets
> as well. You can peruse the documentation for more details on that.
>
> The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released (back
> in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee here at
> Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in the community
> started looking at ways to deal with the performance and scalability
> limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They ultimately created
> an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these ideas were fleshed out.
> An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early 2012. At the time of this 1.0
> release the Apollo subproject was designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the
> future. However, the early excitement around Apollo never coalesced into
> sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was mainly due to the fact that
> Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java which was used by ActiveMQ.
> However, the architectural underpinnings were solid and not terribly
> different from what was being implemented in the JBoss community in the
> HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ
> approached the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base
> to Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ
> broker with all the great features and usability that the community had
> come to expect along with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for
> the next generation of messaging applications. The donation was accepted
> and the aforementioned goal has been in progress ever since.
>
> I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
>
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
>> artemis?
>> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
>> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
>>
Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
That's correct.
Justin
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 7:22 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> In previous email, you said:
>
> In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with
> the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all
> the great features and usability that the community had come to expect long
> with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the next generation
> of messaging applications.
>
> " an ActiveMQ broker with ..." here is artemis, isn’t it?
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> 发送时间: 2022年3月4日 11:29
> 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
>
> > Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base.
>
> A modified version of the HornetQ code-base was the basis for the initial
> donation to the ActiveMQ community back in late October 2015. Of course,
> since that time the code-base has been heavily modified via over 9,000
> commits from over 170 different contributors.
>
> > At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
>
> I'm not clear on what you're asking here. Can you clarify your question?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:12 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At
> > the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
> >
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> > 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
> > 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> > 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
> >
> > > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> > ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
> >
> > This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> > > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance,
> > > non-blocking architecture for improved scalability and performance,
> > > an architecture designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g.
> > > high-volume, low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The
> > > goal, as I understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of
> the future.
> > > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> > > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't
> > > imagine that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots
> > > of users out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of
> > > different reasons, and there are developers in the community who are
> > > committed to
> > supporting "Classic."
> > >
> > > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> > > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want
> > > those features for a smooth transition. Of course there are
> > > differences between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the
> > > documentation for
> > more details on that.
> > >
> > > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first
> > > released (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management
> > > Committee here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other
> > > developers in the community started looking at ways to deal with the
> > > performance and scalability limitations inherent in the broker's
> > > architecture. They ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called
> > > "Apollo" where these ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release
> > > was announced in early 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the
> > > Apollo subproject was designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the
> > > future. However, the early excitement around Apollo never coalesced
> > > into sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was mainly due to the
> > > fact that Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java which was
> > > used by ActiveMQ. However, the architectural underpinnings were
> > > solid and not terribly different from what was being implemented in
> > > the JBoss community in the HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of
> > > developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to
> > > discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of
> > > creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the
> > > great features and usability that the community had come to expect
> > > along with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the
> > > next generation of messaging applications. The donation was accepted
> > > and the aforementioned goal has been in progress
> > ever since.
> > >
> > > I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> > > domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
> > >> artemis?
> > >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is
> devleped?
> > >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
答复: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com>.
In previous email, you said:
In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the great features and usability that the community had come to expect long with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the next generation of messaging applications.
" an ActiveMQ broker with ..." here is artemis, isn’t it?
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
发送时间: 2022年3月4日 11:29
收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
> Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base.
A modified version of the HornetQ code-base was the basis for the initial donation to the ActiveMQ community back in late October 2015. Of course, since that time the code-base has been heavily modified via over 9,000 commits from over 170 different contributors.
> At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
I'm not clear on what you're asking here. Can you clarify your question?
Justin
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:12 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At
> the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
> 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
>
> > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
>
> This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance,
> > non-blocking architecture for improved scalability and performance,
> > an architecture designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g.
> > high-volume, low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The
> > goal, as I understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future.
> > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't
> > imagine that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots
> > of users out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of
> > different reasons, and there are developers in the community who are
> > committed to
> supporting "Classic."
> >
> > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want
> > those features for a smooth transition. Of course there are
> > differences between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the
> > documentation for
> more details on that.
> >
> > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first
> > released (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management
> > Committee here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other
> > developers in the community started looking at ways to deal with the
> > performance and scalability limitations inherent in the broker's
> > architecture. They ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called
> > "Apollo" where these ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release
> > was announced in early 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the
> > Apollo subproject was designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the
> > future. However, the early excitement around Apollo never coalesced
> > into sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was mainly due to the
> > fact that Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java which was
> > used by ActiveMQ. However, the architectural underpinnings were
> > solid and not terribly different from what was being implemented in
> > the JBoss community in the HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of
> > developers around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to
> > discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of
> > creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the
> > great features and usability that the community had come to expect
> > along with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for the
> > next generation of messaging applications. The donation was accepted
> > and the aforementioned goal has been in progress
> ever since.
> >
> > I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> > domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
> >> artemis?
> >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
> >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
> >>
> >
>
Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
> Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base.
A modified version of the HornetQ code-base was the basis for the initial
donation to the ActiveMQ community back in late October 2015. Of course,
since that time the code-base has been heavily modified via over 9,000
commits from over 170 different contributors.
> At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
I'm not clear on what you're asking here. Can you clarify your question?
Justin
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:12 PM 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At the
> same time, how to support activemq was considered.
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
> 发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
> 收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
> 主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
>
> > In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
> ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
>
> This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> > broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking
> > architecture for improved scalability and performance, an architecture
> > designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume,
> > low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I
> > understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future.
> > That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> > been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine
> > that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users
> > out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of different
> > reasons, and there are developers in the community who are committed to
> supporting "Classic."
> >
> > As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> > features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those
> > features for a smooth transition. Of course there are differences
> > between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the documentation for
> more details on that.
> >
> > The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released
> > (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee
> > here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in
> > the community started looking at ways to deal with the performance and
> > scalability limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They
> > ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these
> > ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early
> > 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the Apollo subproject was
> > designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. However, the early
> > excitement around Apollo never coalesced into sustainable momentum. In
> > my opinion this was mainly due to the fact that Apollo was written in
> > Scala rather than Java which was used by ActiveMQ. However, the
> > architectural underpinnings were solid and not terribly different from
> > what was being implemented in the JBoss community in the HornetQ
> > broker. In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached
> > the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to
> > Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ
> > broker with all the great features and usability that the community
> > had come to expect along with a high-performance, non-blocking
> > architecture for the next generation of messaging applications. The
> > donation was accepted and the aforementioned goal has been in progress
> ever since.
> >
> > I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> > domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
> >> artemis?
> >> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
> >> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
> >>
> >
>
答复: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by 穆 建江 <do...@outlook.com>.
So, Is that means artemis is created based on HornetQ code base. At the same time, how to support activemq was considered.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbertram@apache.org]
发送时间: 2021年12月21日 0:50
收件人: users@activemq.apache.org
主题: Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
> In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
Justin
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation
> broker from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking
> architecture for improved scalability and performance, an architecture
> designed to enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume,
> low-latency asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I
> understand it, is for Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future.
> That said, ActiveMQ "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's
> been the de facto open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine
> that it will be summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users
> out there who can't or won't upgrade for all kinds of different
> reasons, and there are developers in the community who are committed to supporting "Classic."
>
> As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same
> features which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those
> features for a smooth transition. Of course there are differences
> between the feature sets as well. You can peruse the documentation for more details on that.
>
> The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released
> (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee
> here at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in
> the community started looking at ways to deal with the performance and
> scalability limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They
> ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these
> ideas were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early
> 2012. At the time of this 1.0 release the Apollo subproject was
> designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. However, the early
> excitement around Apollo never coalesced into sustainable momentum. In
> my opinion this was mainly due to the fact that Apollo was written in
> Scala rather than Java which was used by ActiveMQ. However, the
> architectural underpinnings were solid and not terribly different from
> what was being implemented in the JBoss community in the HornetQ
> broker. In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached
> the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to
> Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ
> broker with all the great features and usability that the community
> had come to expect along with a high-performance, non-blocking
> architecture for the next generation of messaging applications. The
> donation was accepted and the aforementioned goal has been in progress ever since.
>
> I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
>
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
>> artemis?
>> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
>> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
>>
>
Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
> In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ approached the
ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base to Apache...
This actually happened in 2014. I apologize for any confusion.
Justin
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:52 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation broker
> from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking architecture
> for improved scalability and performance, an architecture designed to
> enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume, low-latency
> asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I understand it, is for
> Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. That said, ActiveMQ
> "Classic" has a large user-base given that it's been the de facto
> open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine that it will be
> summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users out there who can't or
> won't upgrade for all kinds of different reasons, and there are developers
> in the community who are committed to supporting "Classic."
>
> As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same features
> which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those features for a
> smooth transition. Of course there are differences between the feature sets
> as well. You can peruse the documentation for more details on that.
>
> The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released
> (back in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee here
> at Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in the
> community started looking at ways to deal with the performance and
> scalability limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They
> ultimately created an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these ideas
> were fleshed out. An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early 2012. At the
> time of this 1.0 release the Apollo subproject was designed to be
> ActiveMQ's platform of the future. However, the early excitement around
> Apollo never coalesced into sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was
> mainly due to the fact that Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java
> which was used by ActiveMQ. However, the architectural underpinnings were
> solid and not terribly different from what was being implemented in the
> JBoss community in the HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of developers
> around HornetQ approached the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the
> HornetQ code-base to Apache with the goal of creating the best of both
> worlds - an ActiveMQ broker with all the great features and usability that
> the community had come to expect along with a high-performance,
> non-blocking architecture for the next generation of messaging
> applications. The donation was accepted and the aforementioned goal has
> been in progress ever since.
>
> I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
>
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
> domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
>> artemis?
>> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
>> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
>>
>
Re: The difference between ActiveMQ classic and artemis?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
The short answer is that ActiveMQ Artemis is the next generation broker
from ActiveMQ. It is based on a high-performance, non-blocking architecture
for improved scalability and performance, an architecture designed to
enable modern messaging use-cases (e.g. high-volume, low-latency
asynchronous microservices, etc.). The goal, as I understand it, is for
Artemis to be ActiveMQ's platform of the future. That said, ActiveMQ
"Classic" has a large user-base given that it's been the de facto
open-source JMS server since 2007 so I can't imagine that it will be
summarily abandoned. I think there are lots of users out there who can't or
won't upgrade for all kinds of different reasons, and there are developers
in the community who are committed to supporting "Classic."
As you note, both "Classic" and Artemis share many of the same features
which is no surprise as many migrating users will want those features for a
smooth transition. Of course there are differences between the feature sets
as well. You can peruse the documentation for more details on that.
The long answer is that a few years after ActiveMQ was first released (back
in 2007) the chair of the ActiveMQ Project Management Committee here at
Apache (i.e. Hiram Chirino) and a couple other developers in the community
started looking at ways to deal with the performance and scalability
limitations inherent in the broker's architecture. They ultimately created
an ActiveMQ subproject called "Apollo" where these ideas were fleshed out.
An Apollo 1.0 release was announced in early 2012. At the time of this 1.0
release the Apollo subproject was designed to be ActiveMQ's platform of the
future. However, the early excitement around Apollo never coalesced into
sustainable momentum. In my opinion this was mainly due to the fact that
Apollo was written in Scala rather than Java which was used by ActiveMQ.
However, the architectural underpinnings were solid and not terribly
different from what was being implemented in the JBoss community in the
HornetQ broker. In 2016 the community of developers around HornetQ
approached the ActiveMQ community to discuss donating the HornetQ code-base
to Apache with the goal of creating the best of both worlds - an ActiveMQ
broker with all the great features and usability that the community had
come to expect along with a high-performance, non-blocking architecture for
the next generation of messaging applications. The donation was accepted
and the aforementioned goal has been in progress ever since.
I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
Justin
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:48 PM domson.tech@outlook.com <
domson.tech@outlook.com> wrote:
> I was wondering what is the difference between ActiveMQ classic and
> artemis?
> I found most feature of them are very similar, why artemis is devleped?
> If ActiveMQ classic will be abandoned in future?
>