> 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 <domson.t...@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:jbert...@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 <jbert...@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.t...@outlook.com < > > domson.t...@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? > >> > > >
