Its about having clear direction as a project. Im not saying it has to be artemis im not saying it has to be classic
But there does have to be a single and very clear direction so end users have a clear understanding in the long term direction. Having ever changing direction is worse than having none at all also. It actually has a negative impact. This said last year i thought a clear direction was agreed. But if that is to change, i think we need to be very clear what that is for both classic, artemis and the clients. With actual real commitments, not just wooly aspirational ideas. Get Outlook for Android On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 7:59 AM +0100, "Francois Papon" <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: Hi, We can a see there is still an interest from the users to Apache ActiveMQ 5.x. In github we have 61 open PR => https://github.com/apache/activemq/pulls Why forcing users to migrate to Artemis if the community is still active? regards, François fpa...@apache.org Le 08/07/2019 à 18:15, michael.andre.pea...@me.com.INVALID a écrit : > I think as a project we need to be clear in direction here with one roadmap. > To avoid users confusion. > > > > > I was on the understanding that as a community and PMC a roadmap was already > agreed. > > > > > And this was for artemis to become activemq 6 was agreed and once it has all > features (and more) of 5 which is now nearing. > > > > > Its one of the reasons over the years features like jms 2 there hasnt been > effort to add it, as Artemis was the planned replacement that brought jms 2 > features amongst others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:13 PM +0100, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi JB, > > I think it make a lot of sense to focus on this points and I will be > more than happy to contribute! > > There is a very large community of users around the ActiveMQ 5.x and > it's still very widely use in production environment. > > I'm not sure that the users actually understand the difference between > ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis, and why Artemis will became ActiveMQ 6.x. > > If ActiveMQ 5.x still has a long life, I think that the community should > be clear about the 2 projects name. > > regards, > > François > fpa...@apache.org > > Le 18/06/2019 à 19:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to discuss with you about the ActiveMQ 5.x roadmap. >> >> Even if Artemis is there, the stack is different and we still have lot >> of users on ActiveMQ, and, as a ActiveMQ 5.x fan and contributor, I >> think it's worth to give a new "dimension" to ActiveMQ 5.x. >> >> As all Apache projects, ActiveMQ 5.x roadmap and use is driven by the >> community, so I would like to propose and share some ideas with the >> ActiveMQ community. >> >> I already imagine a new codename for ActiveMQ 5.x roadmap: ActiveMQ Missus. >> >> Basically, I would like to propose a roadmap around three major points: >> >> 1. Modularity >> Today, ActiveMQ 5.x is a monolythic broker, even if most of the parts >> are already well isolated (persistent stores, transport connectors, >> etc). It makes sense to have some more "modular" and micro-services >> oriented, why not leveraging Apache Karaf with services. >> >> 2. Configuration backends >> We currently use Spring beans XML as main configuration backend (or >> blueprint in Karaf). I think it makes sense to update and split the >> configuration backend with something more "pluggable", and be able to >> expose new configuration format like yml. >> >> 3. Protocol/API update >> I would like to add support of JMS 2.0 in ActiveMQ 5.x and check/update >> the other protocols/APIs. >> >> 4. Cloud friendly >> I already sent some ideas weeks ago about "cloud friendly features" in >> ActiveMQ 5.x. >> Basically, I would like to propose: >> - a replicated/distributed persistent store to be able to have several >> brokers running with a distributed store. I'm testing an update to >> KahaDB using Bookkeeper. >> - provide new discovery agents with support of Kubernetes, Hazelcast, ... >> >> I would love to hear the community about this ! ;) >> I'm planning to start a complete document to provide more details and >> "milestone". >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Regards >> JB > > > > > >
